HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-1501_TUMF_ProgramORDINANCE NO. 2025-1501
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AND SUPERSEDING CHAPTER 16.83 TO UPDATE
PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAM
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 16.83, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program, of the Lake
Elsinore Municipal Code, is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
Chapter 16.83
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF)
PROGRAM
16.83.010 Title.
This Chapter shall be known as the “Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee Program Ordinance of 2025” (“Chapter” or “Chapter 16.83”).
16.83.020 Findings.
A. The City is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments
(“WRCOG”), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and 18 cities located in
Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, the WRCOG member agencies developed a plan
whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways
and Arterials in Western Riverside County (the “Regional System”) could be made up in part by
a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (“TUMF”) on future residential, commercial and industrial
development. A map depicting the boundaries of Western Riverside County and the Regional
System, hereinafter referred to as Exhibit “A,” is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and
incorporated herein. As a member agency of WRCOG and as a TUMF Participating Jurisdiction,
the City participated in the preparation of a certain “Western Riverside County Transportation
Uniform Fee Nexus Study,” dated October 18, 2002 (the “2002 Nexus Study”) prepared in
compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.) and adopted by the
WRCOG Executive Committee. Based on the 2002 Nexus Study, the City adopted and
implemented an ordinance authorizing the City’s participation in a TUMF Program.
B. In 2016, the TUMF Nexus Study (“2016 Nexus Study”) was updated for the purpose of
updating the fees. On July 10, 2017, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2016 Nexus
Study and TUMF Program and recommended that TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their
applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction
in order to update the TUMF Program.
C. On September 26, 2017, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1381, which adopted the 2016
Nexus Study and updated the TUMF.
D. In 2018, the TUMF Program was altered to adopt a process in which WRCOG calculates
and collects TUMF on behalf of member agencies under the Western Riverside County
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2018.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Ord. 2025-1501
Page 2 of 13
E. The City adopted Ordinance No. 1490 on November 14, 2023, allowing WRCOG to
calculate and collect TUMF on behalf of the City.
F. WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, prepared an updated
nexus study entitled “Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2024 Update” (“2024
Nexus Study”) pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation
Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On September 9, 2024, the WRCOG Executive
Committee reviewed the 2024 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended that TUMF
Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the
TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program.
G. Consistent with its previous findings made in the ordinances adopting and amending the
Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance, Chapter
16.83 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (LEMC), the City Council has been informed and
advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged and unless
development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the result will be
substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels
of Service. Furthermore, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will
substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thus,
adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. Therefore, the continuation of a TUMF
Program is essential.
H. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship
between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed
because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary
for the safety, health, and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development
in which the TUMF will be levied.
I. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship
between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development
projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-
residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional system. Such development will
benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such developments will be
mitigated in part by payment of the TUMF.
J. The City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the new 2024
Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements
and the facilities that comprise the Regional System and that the amount of the TUMF expected
to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development.
K. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to help pay for the design,
planning, construction of, and real acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its
facilities as identified in the 2024 Nexus Study. The need for improvements and facilities is related
to new development because such development results in additional traffic and creates the
demand for improvements.
L. By notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public
hearing on the 2024 Nexus Study and the fees proposed thereunder, and at least ten (10) days
prior to this hearing, the City Council made the 2024 Nexus Study available to the public.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Ord. 2025-1501
Page 3 of 13
M. At the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered data and
information provided by the public relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which
the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the
conclusion of the hearing.
N. The City Council finds that the 2024 Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method
for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional
system.
O. The City Council hereby adopts the 2024 Nexus Study and its findings. The 2024 Nexus
Study is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, incorporated herein by reference.
16.83.030 Definitions.
For the purpose of this Chapter, the following words, terms, and phrases shall have the following
meanings:
“Class ‘A’ Office” means an office building that is typically characterized by high-quality design,
use of high-end building materials, state-of-the-art technology for voice and data, on-site support
services/maintenance, and often includes full-service ancillary uses such as but not limited to a
bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The
minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class ‘A” Office shall be as follows: (i)
minimum of three stories (exception will be made for March JPA, where height requirements
exist); (ii) minimum of 10,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame construction; (iv) central,
interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is
located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be
accessed from the street to provide entrances/ exits for commercial uses within the building.
“Class ‘B’ Office” means an office building that is typically characterized by high-quality design,
use of high-end building materials, state-of-the-art technology for voice and data, on-site support
services/maintenance, and often includes full-service ancillary uses such as but not limited to a
bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The
minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class ‘B” Office shall be as follows: (i)
minimum of two stories; (ii) minimum of 15,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame, concrete or
masonry shell construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside
the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in
which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/exits for
commercial uses within the building.
“Development Project” or “Project” means any project undertaken for the purposes of
development, including the issuance of a permit for construction.
“Disabled Veteran” means any veteran who is retired or is in the process of medical retirement
from military service who is or was severely injured in a theatre of combat operations and has or
received a letter of eligibility for the Veterans Administration Specially Adapted Housing (SAH)
Grant Program.
“Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities” means any owned and
operated facilities by a government entity in accordance with Section F. Exemptions of Section
16.83.040 of this Chapter. A new development that is subject to a long-term lease with a
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Ord. 2025-1501
Page 4 of 13
government agency for government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities shall
apply only if all of the following conditions are met:
1) The new development being constructed is subject to a long-term lease with a
government agency.
2) The project shall have a deed restriction placed on the property that limits the use
to government/public facility for the term of the lease, including all extension
options, for a period of not less than 20 years. Any change in the use of the facility
from government shall trigger the payment of the TUMF in effect at the time of the
change is made.
3) No less than ninety percent of the total square footage of the building is leased to
the government agency during the term of the deed restriction, the long term, and
any extensions thereof.
4) The new development is constructed at prevailing wage rates.
5) A copy of the lease is provided to the applicable jurisdiction and to WRCOG.
6) Based on the facts and circumstances, WRCOG determines that the intent of the
lease is to provide for long-term government use and not to evade payment of
TUMF.
“Gross Acreage” means the total property area as shown on a land division of a map of record or
described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area shall be bounded by
road rights of way and property lines.
“Guest Dwellings” and “Detached Second Units” according to the State of California legal
definition as follows: 1) Complies with the State of California Department of Housing and
Community Development Accessory Dwelling Unit Handbook and 2) Are ministerially approved
by each jurisdiction’s local codes.
“Habitable Structure” means any structure or part thereof where persons reside, congregate, or
work and which is legally occupied in whole or part in accordance with applicable building codes
and state and local laws.
“Industrial Project” means any development project that proposes any industrial or manufacturing
use allowed in LEMC Title 17, Zoning, zoning classifications: C-M, M-1, M-2, M-3, or Specific Plan
Districts with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone.
“Long-Term Lease” as used in the TUMF Program, a “long-term lease” shall mean a lease with a
term of no less than twenty years.
“Low-Income Residential Housing” means ”Residential Affordable Units”: (A) for rental housing,
the units shall be made available, rented, and restricted to “lower-income households” (as defined
in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) at an “affordable rent” (as defined in Health and
Safety Code Section 50053), ). Affordable units that are rental housing shall be made available,
rented, and restricted to lower-income households at an affordable rent for a period of at least
fifty-five (55) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new residential
development. and (B) for for-sale housing, the units shall be sold to “persons or families of low or
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Ord. 2025-1501
Page 5 of 13
moderate income” (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093) at a purchase price that
will not cause the purchaser’s monthly housing cost to exceed “affordable housing cost (as
defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5) Affordable units that are for-sale housing
units shall be restricted to ownership by persons and families of low or moderate income for at
least forty-five (45) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residential
development.
“Mixed-Use Development,” as used in the TUMF Program, means Developments with the
following criteria: (1) three or more significant revenue-producing uses, and (2) significant physical
and functional integration of project components.
“Multi-Family Residential Unit” means a structure with two or more legally independent residential
dwelling units intended for human habitation.
“Non-profit Organization” means an organization operated exclusively for exempt purposes set
forth in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and none of its earnings may inure to any
private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not
attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities, and it may not participate in
any campaign activity for or against political candidates. For the purposes of the TUMF Program,
the non-profit may be a 501(c) (3) charitable organization as defined by the Internal Revenue
Service.
“Non-Residential Unit” means retail commercial, service commercial, and industrial development,
which is designed primarily for non-dwelling use but shall include hotels and motels.
“Recognized Financing District” means a Financing District as defined in the TUMF Administrative
Plan as may be amended from time to time.
“Residential Dwelling Unit” means a building or portion thereof used by one (1) family and
containing but one (1) kitchen, which is designed primarily for residential occupancy, including
single-family and multi-family dwellings. “Residential Dwelling Unit” shall not include hotels or
motels.
“Retail Commercial Project” means any development project that proposes any retail commercial
activity use not defined as a service commercial project allowed in the LEMC Title 17, Zoning,
zoning classifications: C-O, C-1, C-2, C-P, CMU, R-M-R, R-R, R-E, R-H, R-1, R-2, R-3, RMU, R,
PI, or Specific Plan Districts one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone, which can
include any eating/dining facility residing on the retail commercial development premises.
“Service Commercial Project” means any development project that is predominately dedicated to
business activities associated with professional or administrative services and typically consists
of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal and medical offices, eating/dining facilities, and
other uses related to personal or professional services.
“Single Family Residential Unit” means each residential dwelling unit development that is situated
on one lot that shares no common wall, foundation, or other interconnection with another dwelling
unit.
“TUMF Administrative Plan” means that the TUMF Administration Plan adopted by the WRCOG
Executive Committee on May 5, 2003, as amended, setting forth detailed administration
procedures and requirements for the TUMF program.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Ord. 2025-1501
Page 6 of 13
“TUMF Participating Jurisdiction” means a jurisdiction in Western Riverside County that has
adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing participation in the TUMF Program and
complies with all regulations established in the TUMF Administrative Plan, as adopted and
amended from time to time by the WRCOG.
16.83.040. Establishment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee.
A. Adoption of TUMF Schedule. The City Council shall adopt an applicable TUMF schedule
through a separate resolution, which may be amended from time to time.
B. Fee Calculation. The fees shall be calculated by WRCOG according to the calculation
methodology fee set forth in the WRCOG TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14,
2003, as amended from time to time. In addition to data in the Fee Calculation Handbook,
WRCOG staff may consider the following items when establishing the appropriate fee calculation
methodology:
1) Underlying zoning of the site
2) Land-use classifications in the latest Nexus Study
3) Project-specific traffic studies
4) Latest standardized reference manuals, such as the Institute of Traffic
Engineers Trip Generation Manual
5) Previous TUMF calculations for similar uses
6) WRCOG staff shall approve the final draft credit/reimbursement agreement
prior to execution
WRCOG shall have a final determination regarding the appropriate methodology to calculate the
fee based on the information provided by the local agency. In case of a conflict between the
applicant, WRCOG, and/or the local agency regarding the fee calculation methodology, the
dispute resolution process in the TUMF Administrative Plan will apply.
C. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed, and the amounts may
be adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to the resolution, reference is
subsection A of this Section 16.83.040, the fees may be increased or decreased to reflect the
changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System, including, but not limited to, debt
service, lease payments, and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect
changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to
this Chapter, as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to construct the
Regional System. WRCOG shall review the TUMF Program no less than every four (4) years after
the effective date of this Chapter.
D. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional
System as depicted in Exhibit “A” and identified in the 2024 Nexus Study, Exhibit “B.”
E. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new developments within the City unless
otherwise exempt hereunder.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Ord. 2025-1501
Page 7 of 13
F. Exemptions. The following types of new development shall be exempt from the
provisions of this Chapter and in the TUMF Administrative Plan:
1. Low-income residential housing as described in Section 16.83.030 Definitions of
this Chapter and in the TUMF Administrative Plan.
2. Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities as described in
Section 16.83.030, Definitions this Chapter and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Airports
that are public-use airports and are appropriately permitted by Caltrans or other state
agencies.
3. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development
Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq, prior to the
effective date of Ordinance No. 1096, wherein the imposition of new fees is expressly
prohibited, provided that if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended by
amendment or by any other manner after the effective date of Ordinance No. 1096, the
TUMF shall be imposed.
4. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any habitable structure in use on or after
January 1, 2000, provided that the same or fewer traffic trips are generated as a result
thereof.
5. Guest Dwellings and Detached Second Units as described in this Chapter, Section
16.83.030 and in the Administrative Plan
6. Kennels and Catteries established in connection with an existing single-family
residential unit.
7. Any sanctuary or other activity under the same roof of a church or other house of
worship that is not revenue generating and is eligible for a property tax exemption
(excluding concert venues, coffee/snack shops, book stores, for-profit pre-school day-
cares, etc., which would be assessed TUMF.)
8. Any non-profit corporation or non-profit organization offering and conducting full-
time day school at the elementary, middle school, or high school level for students
between the ages of five and eighteen years.
9. New single-family homes, constructed by non-profit organizations, specially
adapted and designed for maximum freedom of movement and independent living for
qualified Disabled Veterans.”
10. Other uses may be exempt as determined by the WRCOG Executive Committee
as further defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan.
G. Credit. Regional System improvements may be credited toward the TUMF in accordance
with the TUMF Administrative Plan and the following:
1. Regional Tier
a. Arterial Credits: If a developer constructs arterial improvements identified on
the Regional System, the developer shall receive credit for all costs associated
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Ord. 2025-1501
Page 8 of 13
with the arterial component based on the approved Nexus Study for the
Regional System effective at the time the credit agreement is entered into.
WRCOG staff must pre-approve any credit agreements that deviate from the
standard WRCOG-approved format.
b. Other Credits: In special circumstances, when a developer constructs off-site
improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade separation,
credits shall be determined by WRCOG and the City in consultation with the
developer. All such credits must have prior written approval from WRCOG.
c. The amount of the development fee credit shall not exceed the maximum
amount determined by the Nexus Study for the Regional System at the time
the credit agreement is entered into or actual costs, whichever is less.
2. Local Tier
a. The local jurisdictions shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the
Regional System and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program except
where there is a Recognized Financing District has been established.
b. If a Recognized Financing District is established, the local agency may credit
that portion of the facility identified in both programs against the TUMF in
accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan.
16.83.050. Reimbursements.
Should the developer construct Regional System improvements in excess of the TUMF fee
obligation, the developer may be reimbursed based on actual costs or the approved Nexus Study
effective at the time the agreement was entered into, whichever is less. Reimbursements shall be
enacted through an agreement between the developer and the City, contingent on funds being
available and approved by WRCOG. In all cases, however, reimbursements under such special
agreements must coincide with the construction of the transportation improvements as scheduled
in the five-year Zone Transportation Improvement Program adopted annually by WRCOG.
16.83.060. Procedures for the Levy, Collection, and Disposition of Fees.
A. Authority of the Community Development Department. The Director of Community
Development, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized to provide WRCOG with development
project specifics for the calculation of TUMF in a manner consistent with the TUMF Administrative
Plan.
B. Payment and Collection. Payment of the fees shall be as follows:
1. All fees collected hereunder shall be collected by WRCOG for deposit, investment,
accounting, and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of Section 16.83.060, the
TUMF Administrative Plan, and the Mitigation Fee Act.
2. The fees shall be paid at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Development
Project or upon final inspection, whichever comes first (the “Payment Date”). However,
this section should not be construed to prevent payment of the fees prior to issuance of
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Ord. 2025-1501
Page 9 of 13
an occupancy permit or final inspection. Fees may be paid at the issuance of a building
permit, and the fee payment shall be calculated based on the fee in effect at that time,
provided the developer tenders the full amount of his/her TUMF obligation. If the developer
makes only a partial payment prior to the Payment Date, the amount of the fee due shall
be based on the TUMF fee schedule in place on the Payment Date. The fees shall be
calculated according to the fee schedule set forth in this Chapter and the calculation
methodology set forth in the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as
amended from time to time.
3. The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment is
due under this Chapter, not the date the TUMF ordinances were initially adopted. The City
shall not enter into a development agreement that freezes future adjustments of the
TUMF.
4. If all or part of any development project is sold prior to payment of the fee, the property
shall continue to be subject to the requirement for payment of the fee. The obligation to
pay the fee shall run with the land and be binding on all the successors in interest to the
property.
5. Fees shall not be waived.
C. Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The City shall not issue a certificate of occupancy
for any Development Project until WRCOG has provided written evidence that it has collected the
fee.
D. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed with WRCOG in accordance with the provisions of the
TUMF Administrative Plan. Appealable issues shall be the application of the fee, application of
credits, application of reimbursement, application of the legal action stay, and application of
exemption.
E. Reports to WRCOG. The Director of Community Development, or his/her designee, shall
prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG periodic reports as will be established
under this Chapter, Section 16.83.070.
16.83.070. Appointment of the TUMF Administrator.
WRCOG is hereby appointed as the Administrator of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Program. WRCOG is hereby authorized to collect all fees generated from the TUMF within the
City and to invest, account for, and expend such fees in accordance with the provisions of this
Chapter and the Mitigation Fee Act. The detailed administrative procedures concerning the
implementation of this Chapter shall be contained in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Furthermore,
the TUMF Administrator shall use the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as
amended from time to time, for the purpose of calculating a developer’s TUMF obligation. In
addition to detailing the methodology for calculating all TUMF obligations of different categories
of new development, the purpose of the Fee Calculation Handbook is to clarify for the TUMF
Administrator, where necessary, the definition and calculation methodology for uses not clearly
defined in the respective TUMF ordinances.
WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the TUMF for staff support,
audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Ord. 2025-1501
Page 10 of 13
out its responsibilities, and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed
two percent (2%) of the revenue raised by the TUMF Program. The TUMF Administrative Plan
further outlines the fiscal responsibilities and limitations of the Administrator.
16.83.080. Effect.
No provisions of this Chapter shall entitle any person who has already paid the TUMF to receive
a refund, credit, or reimbursement of such payment. This Chapter does not create any new TUMF.
Section 2. Severability.
If any one or more of the terms, provisions, or sections of this Ordinance shall to any extent be
judged invalid, unenforceable, and/or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent
jurisdiction, then each and all of the remaining terms, provisions and sections of this Ordinance
shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable.
Section 3. No Procedural Defenses.
Prohibition of Jurisdictions from raising procedural defenses, including without limitation a statute
of limitations, laches, the California Government Tort Claims Act, and necessary parties in a
dispute with WRCOG regarding the matters set forth herein.
Section 4. Judicial Review.
In accordance with State law, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void
or annul this Ordinance shall be commenced within ninety (90) days of the date of adoption of
this Ordinance.
Section 5. Ordinance No.
This Ordinance supersedes the provisions of Ordinance No. 1381, provided this Ordinance is not
declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction. If, for whatever reason, this
Ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, Ordinance
No. 1381, all other related ordinances and policies shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 6. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 am on the thirty-first (31st) day after the date of
adoption.
Section. 7. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance
and shall cause a synopsis of the same to be published according to law.
Passed, Approved, and Adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Lake Elsinore, California, on this 25th day of February 2025.
Brian Tisdale
Mayor
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Ord. 2025-1501
Page 11 of 13
Attest:
Candice Alvarez, MMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE )
I, Candice Alvarez, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, do hereby certify that
Ordinance No. 2024-1501 was introduced by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore,
California, at its Regular meeting of February 11, 2025, and adopted at its Regular meeting of
February 25, 2025, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Manos, Johnson, and Sheridan; Mayor Pro Tem Magee; and Mayor
Tisdale
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Candice Alvarez, MMC
City Clerk
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Ord. 2025-1501
Page 12 of 13
EXHIBIT “A”
EXHIBIT “A”
MAP OF REGIONAL SYSTEM
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT “B”
NEXUS STUDY
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE
NEXUS STUDY
2024 UPDATE
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for the Western Riverside Council of Governments
In Cooperation with
The City of Banning
The City of Beaumont
The City of Calimesa
The City of Canyon Lake
The City of Corona
The City of Eastvale
The City of Hemet
The City of Jurupa Valley
The City of Lake Elsinore
The City of Menifee
The City of Moreno Valley
The City of Murrieta
The City of Norco
The City of Perris
The City of Riverside
The City of San Jacinto
The City of Temecula
The City of Wildomar
The County of Riverside
Eastern Municipal Water District
March Joint Powers Authority
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Riverside Transit Agency
Western Water
Prepared by GHD
As adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee, September 9, 2024
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................i
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. ii
ES.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ iii
ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study ........................................................ iii
ES.2 Future Growth ............................................................................................................ vi
ES.3 Need for the TUMF ..................................................................................................... vi
ES.4 The TUMF Network ....................................................................................................viii
ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis ...................................................................................................x
ES.6 Fair-Share Fee Calculation ........................................................................................x
ES.7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY ................................................ 1
1.1 Background .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History ......................................................................................... 3
1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process ....................................................................................... 5
2.3.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List ............................................................... 7
2.3.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs ....................................................... 8
2.3.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component ............................................................ 9
2.3.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments ..........................................10
2.3.5. Computing the Fee for Non-Residential Developments ..................................10
2.0 FUTURE GROWTH .........................................................................................................13
2.1 Recent Historical Trend ...........................................................................................13
2.2 Available Demographic Data ...............................................................................13
2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis ...........................14
3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF ....................................................................................................21
3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels ........................................................................21
3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels ................................................................................24
3.3 The TUMF Concept ..................................................................................................25
4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK .....................................................................................................27
4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network ......................................................27
4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network .......................................................30
4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs .................................................................33
4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System .......................................37
4.5 Existing Obligated Funding .....................................................................................40
4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs ................................................................40
4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost ..................................................................................42
4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation .......................................................................................53
5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................55
5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements .......................................55
5.2 Application of Fee to System Components ..........................................................56
5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non-Residential Developments .............59
6.0 FAIR-SHARE FEE CALCULATION ...................................................................................60
6.1 Residential Fees .......................................................................................................60
6.2 Non-Residential Fees ...............................................................................................62
7.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................64
8.0 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................65
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County ............ xii
Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ................14
Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018
to 2045) .............................................................................................................................17
Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County
(Existing to Future Change Comparison) .......................................................................19
Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing to 2045
No-Build) ...........................................................................................................................22
Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction ...................................35
Table 4.2 – Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County .......................................36
Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures ..........................................................39
Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates ..............................................................................45
Table 4.5 – TUMF Transit Cost Estimates .................................................................................53
Table 4.6 – Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing and 2045
No-Build Scenarios to 2045 TUMF Build Scenario) ..........................................................54
Table 5.1 - 2045 No-Build Peak Period Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone ...............................57
Table 5.2 – 2045 No-Build Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone ................57
Table 5.3 - Backbone-Secondary Network Share Calculation ...........................................58
Table 5.4 - Daily VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2018 - 2045)
..........................................................................................................................................59
Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share .................................................................61
Table 6.2 – Single-Family Residential Fee Adjustments by Unit Size ....................................62
Table 6.3 - Fee Calculation for Non-Residential Share ........................................................63
Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County ..............64
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process ................................. v
Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County
(2018 to 2045) ......................................................................................................................vii
Figure ES.3 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials–TUMF Network Improvements ...i x
Figure 1.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process ................................. 6
Figure 2.1 – Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ..............15
Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ............16
Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County ...........16
Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2018
to 2045) .............................................................................................................................18
Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County
(Existing to Future Change Comparison) .......................................................................20
Figure 4.1 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County .....29
Figure 4.2 - The Backbone Network of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside
County ..............................................................................................................................31
Figure 4.3 - Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) .....................32
Figure 4.4 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials–TUMF Network Improvements ...44
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
iii
ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study
Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated
county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000’s,
this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of
existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure.
Although the economic recession of the late 2000’s, and the associated crises in the
mortgage and housing industries, slowed this rate of growth, the regional economy has
recovered and the projected rate of development in Western Riverside County remains
high. Similarly, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on travel demand in the region
has also passed, with travel demands, especially for the highway network, surpassing
pre-pandemic levels. Continued high growth in households and jobs in Western
Riverside County could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if
substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is
especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources
of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be
nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements.
In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western
Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation
Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the
concept of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for southwest Riverside
County. In August 2000, the concept was expanded to include the entire WRCOG sub-
region.
Continued high growth in households and jobs in Western Riverside County could
significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not
made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial
roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding
(such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund
the needed improvements. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation
system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall
by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future new development will
contribute toward addressing its indirect cumulative traffic impacts on regional
transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be
used to construct transportation improvements such as new arterial highway lanes,
reconfigured freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional
express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in
Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local
agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county
residents and employees will effectively contribute their “fair share” toward sustaining
the regional transportation system.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
iv
This TUMF Draft Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California
Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also
known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which
governs imposing development impact fees in California. The initial WRCOG TUMF
Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive
Committee in November 2002. The results of the first review of the Program were
documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive
Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program
was adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third
comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted following the adoption of
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional
Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016.
The WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update Report was adopted by the WRCOG
Executive Committee on July 10, 2017.
On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal; The 2020-2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California
Association of Governments (2020 RTP/SCS). The adoption of the 2020 RTP/SCS
confirmed new growth forecasts for the region that provide a foundational element for
updating the TUMF program and the associated nexus determination prompting
WRCOG to initiate the current program update. These forecasts are also integrated
into the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivCoM) used to forecast the
cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development on the arterial highway
network in Western Riverside County.
The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is illustrated in Figure ES.1. Each
technical step is denoted with a number on the flow chart with the numbers correlating
to the detailed description of each step provided in Section 1.3 of the Nexus Study
Report. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those
steps that involved the application of RivCoM, steps that utilized other input data, steps
that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the
various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow
chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in the
Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step.
This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the results of the fourth
comprehensive review of the TUMF Program. This version of the document also
incorporates revisions in response to comments received during the formal review of the
earlier Draft TUMF Nexus Study 2024 Update. The findings of this report were ultimately
adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on September 9, 2024.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
v
Figure ES.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
vi
ES.2 Future Growth
In preparation for the 2020 RTP/SCS, SCAG undertook robust stakeholder engagement,
including participation by WRCOG, Riverside County and the various cities in Western
Riverside County, to develop regional demographic forecasts. Using input from
regional stakeholders regarding anticipated patterns and rates of development, SCAG
compiled and disseminated the forecasts that were ultimately adopted in 2020. The
SCAG forecasts adopted for the 2020 RTP/SCS were subsequently used as the basis for
RivCoM and are used as the basis for this TUMF Nexus Study Update.
A major distinction between data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update and the
SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data used for this 2024 Update is the change in the base year from
2012 to 2018, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2040 to 2045. This shift in
the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries
through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting,
network review and fee calculation.
The population of Western Riverside County is projected to increase by 33% in the
period between 2018 and 2045. During the same period, employment in Western
Riverside County is anticipated to grow by 48%. Figure ES.2 illustrates the forecast
growth in population, household and employment for Western Riverside County.
ES.3 Need for the TUMF
The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater RivCoM model network
for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period
performance measures for the TUMF study area included total vehicle miles of travel
(VMT), total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD),
and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E).
As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and
employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the
transportation infrastructure, particularly the arterial roadways, with the peak period
VMT on the TUMF Network estimated to increase by 38% between 2018 and 2045. By
2045, 37% of the total VMT on the TUMF Network is forecast to be traveling on facilities
experiencing peak period LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the arterial
highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists
on the TUMF Network will increase over 5.0% per year. The need to improve these
roadways and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future
development which generates the travel demand.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
vii
Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County
(2018 to 2045)
As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows because of new
development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to
grow. Weekday system ridership for RTA bus transit services is approximately 16,575
riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2023. By 2045, bus transit services are
forecast to serve approximately 57,282 riders per weekday. This represents an average
increase of 1,850 weekday riders each year. Based on this rate of ridership growth,
weekday ridership is estimated to increase by 40,707 riders per weekday between 2018
and 2045.
The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the
region contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities
that serve these longer-distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be
used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the
region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation.
The fee should be assessed proportionately on new residential and non-residential
development based on the relative impact of each use on the transportation system.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
viii
ES.4 The TUMF Network
The Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the TUMF Network) is
the system of roadways that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County
and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. Transportation
facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied these guidelines were
initially identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from
facilities where several guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG
constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local
transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was subsequently endorsed by
the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF
Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee.
The TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the 2024 Nexus Update to ensure facilities
generally still met the previously described performance guidelines, and/or that the
scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network were roughly
proportional to the impacts needing to be mitigated. This review process resulted in the
removal of various facilities from the TUMF Network, as well as various changes in the
scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network.
Figure ES.3 illustrates the TUMF improvements to the Regional System of Highways and
Arterials.
The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $5.28 billion. Accounting for obligated
funds and unfunded existing needs, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF
Program is $4.24 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes
approximately $3.87 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements
and $154.8 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $53.9 million is
also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related
arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while
$161.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF
Program.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
x
ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis
There is a reasonable relationship between the future growth and the need for
improvements to the TUMF system. These factors include:
Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new
development.
Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways.
The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative
regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County.
Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the
cumulative regional impacts of new development.
Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee
program.
Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide
adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to
automobile travel.
The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is
related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between
adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but
still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the
respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix
of peak period trips between zones. The overall result is that 51.1% of the regional travel
is attributable to the backbone network and 48.9% is assigned to the secondary
network.
In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts
associated with new residential development and new non-residential development,
peak period growth in VMT between 2018 and 2045 was derived from RivCoM and
aggregated by trip purpose. It was concluded that home-based person trips represent
77.7% of the total future person trips, and the non-home-based person trips represent
22.3% of the total future person trips.
ES.6 Fair-Share Fee Calculation
The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $4.24 billion which is
the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional
transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region and will be
captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new
developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western
Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their “fair share” of the
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
xi
costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the
regional transportation system.
Of the $4.24 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 77.7% ($3.30 billion) will be
assigned to future new residential development and 22.3% ($946.5 million) will be
assigned to future new non-residential development.
ES.7 Conclusions
Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be demonstrated that there is
reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of
new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate
these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF Program.
Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include:
Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new
development.
Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways;
The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative
regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County;
Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the
cumulative impacts of new development;
Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee
program;
Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide
adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to
automotive travel.
The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional “fair share” of the
improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing
development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. The
fair share fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in
Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table ES.1.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
xii
Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County
Land Use Type Units Development
Change
Fee Per Unit Total Revenue
($ million)
Single-Family Residential DU 167,491 $15,476 $2,592.0
Multi-Family Residential DU 90,335 $7,816 $706.1
Industrial SF GFA 61,489,565 $2.33 $143.1
Retail SF GFA 6,557,500 $11.21 $73.5
Service SF GFA 66,735,957 $9.76 $651.1
Government/Public SF GFA 3,420,665 $23.07 $78.9
MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $2,961.0
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY
1.1 Background
Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated
county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the mid 2000’s,
this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of
existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure.
Although the economic recession of the late 2000’s, and the associated crises in the
mortgage and housing industries, slowed this rate of growth, the regional economy has
recovered and the projected rate of development in Western Riverside County remains
high. Similarly, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on travel demand in the region
has also passed, with travel demands, especially for the highway network, surpassing
pre-pandemic levels.
Continued high growth in households and jobs in Western Riverside County could
significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not
made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial
roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding
(such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund
the needed improvements. Development exactions only provide improvements near
the development site, and the broad-based county-level funding sources (i.e., Riverside
County’s half-cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their
revenues for arterial roadway improvements.
In anticipation of the continued future growth projected in Riverside County, several
county-wide planning processes were initiated in 1999. These planning processes
include the Riverside County General Plan Update, the Community Environmental
Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Related to these planning processes is the need to fund
the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new
development.
Regional arterial highways in Western Riverside County are forecast to carry significant
traffic volumes by 2045. While some localized fee programs exist to mitigate the local
impacts of new development on the transportation system in specific areas, and while
these programs are effective locally, they are insufficient in their ability to meet the
regional demand for transportation infrastructure. Former Riverside County Supervisor
Buster recognized the need to establish a comprehensive funding source to mitigate
the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional
arterial highways. The need to establish a comprehensive funding source for arterial
highway improvements has evolved into the development of the Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for Western Riverside County.
In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western
Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation
Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
2
concept of a TUMF. The intent of this effort was to have the southwest area of Western
Riverside County act as a demonstration for the development of policies and a process
for a regional TUMF Program before applying the concept countywide. From February
1999 to September 2000, the Southwest Area Transportation Infrastructure System
Funding Year 2020 (SATISFY 2020) Program progressed with policy development, the
identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates, fee
scenarios and a draft Implementation Agreement.
In May 2000, Riverside County Supervisor Tavaglione initiated discussions in the
northwest area of Western Riverside County to determine the level of interest in
developing a TUMF for that area of the county. Interest in the development of a
northwest area fee program was high. In August 2000, the WRCOG Executive
Committee took action to build upon the work completed in the southwest area for the
SATISFY 2020 program and to develop a single consolidated mitigation fee program for
all of Western Riverside County. This action was predicated on the desire to establish a
single uniform mitigation fee program to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of
new development on the regional arterial highway system, rather than multiple discrete
and disparate fee programs with varying policies, fees and improvement projects. A
TUMF Policy Committee comprising regional elected officials was formed to
recommend and set policies for staff to develop the TUMF Program and provide overall
guidance to all other staff committees.
While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is
intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new
revenue source that ensures future new development will contribute toward addressing
its indirect cumulative traffic impacts on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding
accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation
improvements such as new arterial highway lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges,
railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed
to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee
on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism
by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively
contribute their “fair share” toward sustaining the regional transportation system.
This TUMF Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government
Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as
California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act), which governs
imposing development impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that
all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow two
basic rules when instituting impact fees. These rules are as follows:
1) Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development
impact fee’s use and the type of project for which the fee is required.
2) The fee must not exceed the project’s proportional “fair share” of the
proposed improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems or
to make improvements for existing development.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
3
1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History
The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of
governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for
representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern
Municipal Water District, Western Water, the Riverside County Superintendent of
Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority and the Riverside Transit Agency to
collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste,
transportation and the environment. WRCOG strives to "respect local control, provide
regional perspective, and make a difference" to elevate the quality of life throughout
the subregion. A current list of the standing WRCOG committees and committee
membership that oversee the TUMF program is included in Appendix A.
The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by
the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. Its purpose was to establish the
nexus or reasonable relationship between new land development projects in Western
Riverside County and the proposed development impact fee that would be used to
improve regional transportation facilities. It also identified the proportional “fair share”
of the improvement cost attributable to new development.
Consistent with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act, the WRCOG Executive
Committee has established that the TUMF Nexus Study will be subject of a
comprehensive review of the underlying program assumptions at least every five years
to confirm the Nexus. Acknowledging the unprecedented and unique nature of the
TUMF Program, the Executive Committee determined that the first comprehensive
review of the Program should be initiated within two years of initial adoption of the
Program primarily to validate the findings and recommendations of the study and to
correct any program oversights. The results of the first review of the Program were
documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive
Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program
was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic
recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project
costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG
Executive Committee on October 5, 2009.
A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015
leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015.
The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the
Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015, where it
was resolved to “delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the
2016 Southern California Association of Governments’ 2016 Regional Transportation Plan
/ Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the
Nexus Study”. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted
the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016
RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016, enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update
of the TUMF Nexus Study. The WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update Report was
ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
4
On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal; The 2020-2045 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California
Association of Governments (2020 RTP/SCS). As stated in the plan document “Connect
SoCal embodies a collective vision for the region’s future, through the horizon year of
2045. It is developed with input from a wide range of constituents and stakeholders
within the Counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and
Ventura, including public agencies, community organizations, elected officials, tribal
governments, the business community and the public. Connect SoCal is an important
planning document for the region, allowing public agencies who implement
transportation projects to do so in a coordinated manner, while qualifying for federal
and state funding.”
The adoption of the 2020 RTP/SCS confirmed new growth forecasts for the region that
were used as the basis to develop the Connect SoCal plan. These forecasts also
provide a foundational element for updating the TUMF program and the associated
nexus determination prompting WRCOG to initiate the current program update. The
2020 RTP/SCS growth forecasts are used directly in the fee calculation as the basis for
determining the anticipated growth in households and employment in the region
through the program horizon year of 2045. These forecasts are also integrated into the
Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivCoM) used to forecast the
cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development on the arterial highway
network in Western Riverside County.
Completed in 2021 to succeed the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RIVTAM),
RivCoM provides a valuable tool for supporting a variety of transportation planning
activities in Riverside County, including the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. RivCoM
was developed under the leadership of WRCOG in conjunction with regional partners
with the intent to provide jurisdictions in Riverside County with a traffic forecasting tool
that, while consistent with the SCAG regional travel demand model, provides a more
appropriate level of detail to support transportation planning at the County or City
level.
RivCoM is a critical tool for quantifying the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new
development as part of the TUMF Nexus Study Update. Utilizing the 2020 RTP/SCS
growth forecasts, RivCoM is used to quantify changes in travel demand and traffic
conditions on the regional highway network, with a specific focus on the TUMF Network.
RivCoM outputs are used to analyze project eligibility and quantify the fair share of
traffic growth that is attributable to new development as inputs to determining the fee.
The adoption of the Connect SoCal plan and the availability of RivCoM to serve as a
critical tool for quantifying network impacts for the TUMF Nexus Study Update were key
factors driving the schedule for this update of the fee.
To ensure new development continues to contribute a fair share of the cost to mitigate
its cumulative regional transportation impacts in the period between the
comprehensive review of program assumptions completed at least every five years, the
WRCOG Executive Committee has also established that the TUMF Schedule of Fees will
be reviewed annually, and adjusted, as needed, on July 1st to reflect current costs. The
revised schedule of fees will typically be recalculated in February of each year based
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
5
on the percentage increase or decrease in the Engineering News Record (ENR)
Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the twelve (12) month period from January of the
prior year to January of the current year, and the percentage increase or decrease in
the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Median Sales Price of Existing Single Family
Homes in the Riverside/San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area for the twelve (12)
month period from the 3rd Quarter of the second year prior to the 3rd Quarter of the prior
year (to coincide with the publication of the most recently updated index). If
approved by the Executive Committee, the resultant percentage change for each of
the indices will be applied to the unit cost assumptions for roadway and bus transit
costs, and land acquisition costs, respectively, to reflect the combined effects of
changes in eligible project costs on the resultant per unit fee for each defined land use
category. The most recent annual cost adjustment to the TUMF Schedule of Fees was
adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 12, 2021.
1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process
In coordination with WRCOG, city and county representatives and other interested
parties have reviewed the underlying assumptions of the Nexus Study as part of this
comprehensive program review. In particular, the most recent socioeconomic
forecasts developed by SCAG as the basis for the 2020 RTP/SCS were incorporated. This
use of the most recent SCAG forecasts resulted in a shift of the program base year from
2012 to 2018, as well as a shift in the program horizon year from 2040 to 2045.
Furthermore, the TUMF Network was re-examined in detail based on travel demand
forecasts derived from the most recent version of the Riverside County Model (RivCoM)
to more accurately reflect future project needs to address the cumulative regional
impacts of new development in Western Riverside County as well as eliminating those
projects having been completed prior to the commencement of the Nexus review in
2021.
The subsequent chapters of this Nexus Study document describe the various
assumptions, data inputs and analysis leading to the determination of each major
variable in the TUMF calculation, and ultimately leading to the determination of the
TUMF Schedule of Fees that indicates the maximum “fair share” fee for each of the
various use types defined in the TUMF program. The overall process for establishing the
TUMF nexus is summarized in this section, including the flow chart in Figure 1.1 that
illustrates the various technical steps in this fee calculation process. Each technical step
that was followed to determine the TUMF Schedule of Fees and establish the program
nexus is summarized below, with the numbers denoted on the flow chart correlating to
the steps described. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to
indicate those steps that involved the application of RivCoM, steps that utilized other
input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required
specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where
appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or
tables included in this Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
6
Figure 1.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
7
2.3.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List
The roadway network in Western Riverside County must be evaluated to determine how
new development activity will impact the performance of the network, and how the
resultant traffic impacts can be mitigated by completing various roadway
improvements. The following steps integrate the latest SCAG socio-economic forecasts
into RivCoM as the basis for determining future roadway deficiencies and identifying
the list of eligible improvements to address these future deficiencies. The rational and
methodology for accomplishing these steps is further explained in Chapters 2 and 3 of
this report, with the resultant TUMF Network described in Chapter 4.
1) The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for
2018 as its base year. This adopted dataset was integrated into RivCoM
providing a critical analytic tool to support the Nexus Study Update.
2) The RivCoM model1 has datasets available that represent the capacity of the
different facilities in the road network for several different study years. For this
nexus update, the RivCoM 2018 base network that was developed following the
adoption of the SCAG 2020 RTP was selected as the one most closely resembling
current conditions. This network was subsequently reviewed and updated,
including a detailed review by WRCOG staff and participating jurisdictions, to
identify projects that were completed on the arterial network in the period
between 2016 and December 2021. The arterial network was then recoded to
reflect the changes to the TUMF Network to create a 2021 Existing Network as the
base network for analysis. A second version of the base network was also
developed adding only those facilities that had been identified on the 2016
TUMF network that did not currently exist and therefore were not represented by
a link(s) in RivCoM. The Supplemental 2021 Existing Network was utilized as the
basis for assessing only those projects that did not currently exist on the TUMF
Network.
3) RivCoM was run using the 2018 socio-economic data (SED) and the 2021 Existing
Networks to produce the baseline volumes on the roads in the TUMF Network.
4) The baseline volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio was then determined. The target
LOS for TUMF facilities is “D”, meaning that facilities with LOS “E” or “F”, i.e. those
with a V/C ratio of 0.9 or higher, are deemed to have inadequate capacity. The
result of this step is a list of roads that have existing capacity deficiencies.
1 The macro-level traffic forecasting was conducted using the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivCoM).
RivCoM is consistent of SCAG’s six-county model with additional detail (traffic analysis zones and local roads) added
within Riverside County. It was developed for use in traffic studies in Riverside County as a replacement for the Riverside
County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM) integrating an updated modeling platform to improve run time and
reliability, as well as a more focused model area, more detailed network and zone structure, and prost processors to
satisfy more recent legislative requirements. RivCoM has both the geographic scope needed to analyze all TUMF
facilities and conformity with regional planning assumptions. There is a memorandum of understanding among the
jurisdictions of Riverside County that encourages the use of the RivCoM model for use in regional traffic studies.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
8
5) The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for
2045 as its forecast horizon year. This adopted dataset was also used as the
future base year for the TUMF update calculation.
6) RivCoM was run using the 2021 Existing Networks with the land use assumptions
for 2045. These “Future No-Build” scenarios was used to determine where
deficiencies would occur in the roadway system if development occurred as
expected but no roadway improvements were implemented.
7) Comparing the existing capacity deficiencies with the future deficiencies
showed where new deficiencies would occur that are entirely attributable to
growth in households and employment. Comparing the existing and future traffic
volume to capacity ratio on the roads that are currently deficient shows the
portion of the future deficiency that is attributable to growth.
8) It is generally acknowledged that the TUMF program cannot and should not
attempt to fund every roadway improvement needed in Western Riverside
County. WRCOG has adopted a set of selection criteria that was used to choose
which roadway improvements would be eligible for TUMF funding.
9) The selection criteria were applied to the forecast deficiencies to identify
projects for the TUMF Project List. The project list was subsequently reviewed to
confirm the eligibility of proposed projects, including projects previously included
in the TUMF program, as well as additional projects requested for inclusion as part
of the current update. The project list was then subsequently updated to reflect
those projects considered eligible for TUMF funding as part of the 2024 Nexus
Study Update.
2.3.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs
The estimated costs of proposed improvements on the TUMF Network are calculated
based on the prices of construction materials, labor and land values for the various
eligible project types included as part of the TUMF program. The approach and
outcomes of the following steps is described in Chapter 4 of this report.
10) The TUMF program has design standards covering the road project components
that are eligible for TUMF funding. This ensures that projects in jurisdictions with
different design standards are treated equally2.
11) Current cost values for labor and materials such as cement, asphalt, reinforcing
steel, etc., as derived from Caltrans cost database, RCTC and other sources,
were tabulated and updated to December 2023. Additionally, the ROW cost
components per square foot for various land use types were also updated based
on current property valuations in Riverside County as researched by Overland,
Pacific and Cutler.
2 A jurisdiction may choose to design to a higher standard, but if it does so, TUMF will only fund up to the equivalent of
what costs would have been had the TUMF design standards been followed.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
9
12) The cost values for the contributing labor, materials and land components were
applied to estimated quantities of these components for the various roadway
project types that are eligible under TUMF to generate aggregate unit cost
values for each project type (road costs per lane-mile, typical costs per arterial-
freeway interchange, bridge costs per linear foot, etc.).
13) The unit costs from the previous step were then applied to the project list to
estimate the costs of the improvements on the TUMF project list.
14) The percentage of each project that was attributable to new development was
then applied to the costs of TUMF road projects to find the total road project cost
that is attributable to new development.
2.3.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component
A portion of the TUMF funding is made available for transit services that provide an
alternative to car travel for medium-to-long distance intra-regional trips. The eligible
transit projects and their associated costs are determined using the following steps, with
additional explanation provided in Chapter 4 of this report.
15) Actual average weekday daily ridership for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) transit
bus services was tabulated for 2023.
16) Forecast average weekday daily ridership for RTA bus transit services was
retrieved from the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model for horizon year 2045.
17) The growth in ridership between 2023 and 2045 was compared to determine the
portion of 2045 average weekday daily ridership that is attributable to existing
passengers and the portion attributable to new growth.
18) A proposed transit project list was provided by RTA staff and was reviewed to
confirm the validity of the project list to establish a final recommended transit
project list to be included as part of the program. The result was the TUMF Transit
Project List.
19) RTA provided information on current costs for the listed transit infrastructure.
20) The cost information was then used to determine the cost of the items on the
TUMF Transit Project List.
21) The percent attribution from Step 17 was applied to the project cost estimates
from the previous step to determine the cost of transit improvements that are
attributable to new development.
22) The costs for road and transit projects that are attributable to new development
are then combined along with information on other (non-TUMF) funds to
determine the total cost for TUMF projects that is to be cover by new
development through the imposition of the fees. The available alternate
funding sources were reviewed as part of the Nexus update, specifically
including the completion of a detailed review of available federal, state and
local funding sources administered by RCTC.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
10
2.3.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments
Having determined the total project costs to be covered by new development under
the TUMF program, it is necessary to divide these costs among different types of
developments roughly in proportion to their expected traffic impacts. The following
steps describes the process for determining the proportion attributable to new
residential development. The approach for accomplishing these steps along with the
findings of this analysis are described in detail in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report.
23) California legislation encourages the use of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the
primary indicator of traffic impacts because it combines the number of vehicle
trips and the average length of those trips to reflect the proportional impact to
the roadway network. As a result, the methodology for determining the relative
distribution of traffic impacts between residential and non-residential uses for the
purposes of TUMF utilizes a VMT based approach. The RivCoM 2021 Existing
Network and 2045 No-Build model runs were examined to determine the VMT of
various trip types that would take place in Western Riverside County (excluding
through trips). The results were compared to determine the growth in VMT for
each trip type. Per WRCOG policy (based on National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) recommended practice) trips originating in or
destined for a home are attributed to residential development while trips where
neither the origin nor the destination are a home are attributed to non-residential
development.
24) The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS socio-economic forecasts were used to estimate the
number of single-family and multi-family dwelling units that will be developed
during the 2018 to 2045 period.
25) The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE’s) trip generation rates, which come
from surveys of existing sites for various development types, were then used to
estimate the daily number of trips that will be generated by future single- and
multi-family developments that will occur in the region from 2018 to 2045.
26) The cost to be covered by residential development was divided into the portion
attributable to new single-family dwellings and portion attributable to new multi-
family development to calculate the cost share for each use.
27) The cost share for single-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings was divided
by the number of dwellings of each type to determine the fee level required
from each new dwelling unit to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the
impacts of new developments.
2.3.5. Computing the Fee for Non-Residential Developments
A process similar to that used for residential units was used to determine the fee level for
non-residential development. However, the determination of fees for non-residential
development involves additional steps due to the additional complexity of accounting
for a greater variety of development types within each use category. Chapter 5 and
Chapter 6 of this report provide additional explanation regarding the methodology for
accomplishing these steps along with the results of this analysis.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
11
28) Like many impact fee programs, TUMF groups similar development projects
together into general use categories to simplify the administration of the
program. TUMF groups the various land use categories found in ITE’s Trip
Generation Manual into four non-residential categories (industrial, retail, service,
and government/public sector) based on the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS), which is also used by the U.S. Census Bureau and
SCAG for demographic classifications and is the basis for such classifications in
the SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model as well as and the RivCoM model. The
ITE trip generation rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy updated to
reflect the most current ITE published rates. The median value for the trip-
generation rates for all uses within each category was used in the nexus study to
represent the trip-generation characteristics for the category.
29) The trip-generation rates of retail and service uses were adjusted to take into
account the share of pass-by trips these uses generate. Pass by trip rates for
various retail and service uses were derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual
to determine the median value of all uses as the basis for the adjustment. The ITE
pass by trip rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy and updated to reflect
the most current ITE published rates.
30) The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS socio economic forecasts included non-residential
employment for 2018 and 2045. These forecasts were used to estimate the
growth in employment in each of the four non-residential uses.
31) The SCAG employment forecasts are denominated in jobs while development
applications are typically denominated in square feet of floorspace. The ratio of
floorspace per employee was determined as a median value derived from four
studies, including a comprehensive study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties
conducted in 1990, an OCTA study conducted in 2001, a SCAG study (including
a specific focus on Riverside County) conducted in 2001, and the Riverside
County General Plan adopted in 2015.
32) The forecast growth in employees was multiplied by the floorspace per
employee to produce a forecast of the floorspace that will be developed for
each of the four non-residential use types.
33) The trip-generation rate for each of the four uses was multiplied by the forecast
of new floorspace to estimate the number of trips generated by each use.
34) The amount of project costs to be covered by non-residential development was
split between the four non-residential uses to determine the TUMF cost share for
each.
35) The TUMF cost share for each of the four non-residential uses was divided by the
forecast growth in floorspace to determine the fee level required from each new
square foot of non-residential development to cover their fair share of the cost to
mitigate the impacts of new developments.
36) WRCOG has adopted a TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook that allows for fee
adjustments to be made to account for unusual circumstances for certain types
of residential and non-residential development (fuel filling stations, golf courses,
high-cube warehouses, wineries, electric charging stations, etc.) These
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
12
adjustments are intended to calculate a fairer proportional fee based on the
unique trip generation characteristics of these development types.
The outcome of this process is a schedule of fees for the various use categories
identified as part of the TUMF program. The study conclusions including the Schedule
of Fees is presented in Chapter 7 of this report. The schedule of fees represents the
maximum fee permissible under California law for the purposes of the TUMF program.
The WRCOG Executive Committee has the option to adopt lower fees, however, in
doing so each use category subject to a lower fee would not be contributing a fair
share of the cost of their impacts. This would in turn create a funding gap for the
program that would necessitate identifying additional project funding from some other
source to ensure the cumulative regional impacts of new development are being
mitigated fully in accordance with the program.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
13
2.0 FUTURE GROWTH
2.1 Recent Historical Trend
Western Riverside County experienced robust growth in the period from the late 1990’s
to the mid 2000’s. The results of Census 2000 indicate that in the year 2000, Western
Riverside County had a population of 1.187 million representing a 30% increase (or 2.7%
average annual increase) from the 1990 population of 912,000. Total employment in
Western Riverside County in 2000 was estimated by the SCAG to be 381,000
representing a 46% increase (or 3.9% average annual increase) over the 1990
employment of 261,000.
Despite the impacts of the Great Recession and the associated residential mortgage
and foreclosure crisis, and more recently with the shifting of population during and
following the COVID-19 pandemic, Western Riverside County has continued to grow
due to the availability of relatively affordable residential and commercial property, and
a generally well-educated workforce. By 2010, the population of the region had grown
to 1.742 million, a further 47% growth in population from 2000. Similarly, total
employment in the region had also grown from 2000 to 2010 with 434,000 employees
estimated to be working in Western Riverside County. This represents a 12% increase
from the 381,000 employees working in the region in 2000.
2.2 Available Demographic Data
A variety of alternate demographic information that quantifies future population,
household and employment growth is available for Western Riverside County. For
earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated
demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by SCAG. SCAG
is the largest of nearly 700 Councils of Government (COG) in the United States and
functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties in Southern
California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and
Imperial. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and plan for issues
of regional significance including transportation and growth management. As part of
these responsibilities, SCAG maintains a comprehensive database of regional
socioeconomic data and develops demographic projections and travel demand
forecasts for Southern California.
In preparation for the 2020 RTP/SCS, SCAG undertook robust stakeholder engagement,
including participation by WRCOG, Riverside County and the various cities in Western
Riverside County, to develop regional demographic forecasts. Using input from
regional stakeholders regarding anticipated patterns and rates of development, SCAG
compiled and disseminated the forecasts that were ultimately adopted in 2020,
including those specific to Western Riverside County. The SCAG forecasts adopted for
the 2020 RTP/SCS were subsequently used as the basis for RivCoM and are used as the
basis for this TUMF Nexus Study Update.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
14
2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis
A major distinction between data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update and the
SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data used for this 2024 Update is the change in the base year from
2012 to 2018, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2040 to 2045. This shift in
the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries
through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting,
network review and fee calculation.
The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS data were compared to the 2016 RTP/SCS data used in the
TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update. As can be seen in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, the 2018
data reflects an increase in population and single-family households, and a very slight
decline in multi-family households. Employment grew substantially overall, with
significant growth in industrial employment, largely attributable to the rapid expansion
of warehousing and logistics facilities in Western Riverside County. In contrast, there
was a notable decline in government and public sector employment in the region from
2012 to 2018
Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County
SED Type 2016 Update
(2012)
2024 Update
(2018) Change Percent
Total Population 1,773,935 1,905,440 131,505 7%
Total Households 525,149 554,573 29,424 6%
Single-Family 366,588 397,407 30,819 8%
Multi-Family 158,561 157,166 -1,395 -1%
Total Employment 460,787 570,420 109,633 24%
Industrial 120,736 169,334 48,598 40%
Retail 65,888 73,814 7,926 12%
Service 253,372 308,703 55,331 22%
Government/Public Sector 20,791 18,569 -2,222 -11%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
15
Figure 2.1 – Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County
Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2 compare the socioeconomic forecasts for the program horizon
year of 2045 used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update and 2045 for this study. The
most recent forecasts reflect an increase in the horizon year population and
households, and a decrease in overall employment in Western Riverside County. The
change in employment was not, however, consistent across sectors. The retail
employment forecast has decreased approximately 15% from 2040 to 2045, while the
industrial employment forecast has increased over 20%. This shift is consistent with the
emergence of e-commerce as an alternative to traditional “brick and mortar” retail.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
16
Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County
SED Type 2016 Update
(2040)
2024 Update
(2045) Change Percent
Total Population 2,429,633 2,533,876 104,243 4%
Total Households 775,231 812,399 37,168 5%
Single-Family 539,631 564,898 25,267 5%
Multi-Family 235,600 247,501 11,901 5%
Total Employment 861,455 846,442 -15,013 -2%
TUMF Industrial 201,328 245,915 44,587 22%
TUMF Retail 101,729 86,929 -14,800 -15%
TUMF Service 528,092 482,958 -45,134 -9%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 30,306 30,640 334 1%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
17
Table 2.3 and Figure 2.3 summarize the socioeconomic data obtained from SCAG and
used as the basis for completing this Nexus Study analysis. The SCAG employment data
for 2018 and 2045 was provided for thirteen employment sectors consistent with the
California Employment Development Department (EDD) Major Groups including:
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade;
Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities;
Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality;
Other Service; and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Study, the EDD Major
Groups were aggregated to Industrial (Farming, Natural Resources and Mining;
Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and
Utilities), Retail (Retail Trade), Service (Information; Financial Activities; Professional and
Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service)
and Government/Public Sector (Government). These four aggregated sector types
were used as the basis for calculating the fee as described in Section 6.2. Appendix B
provides a table detailing the EDD Major Groups and corresponding North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each non-
residential sector type.
Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County
(2018 to 2045)
SED Type 2018 2045 Change Percent
Total Population 1,905,440 2,533,876 628,436 33%
Total Households 554,573 812,399 257,826 46%
Single-Family 397,407 564,898 167,491 42%
Multi-Family 157,166 247,501 90,335 57%
Total Employment 570,420 846,442 276,022 48%
TUMF Industrial 169,334 245,915 76,581 45%
TUMF Retail 73,814 86,929 13,115 18%
TUMF Service 308,703 482,958 174,255 56%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 18,569 30,640 12,071 65%
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
18
Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County
(2018 to 2045)
The combined effects of the changes in the base year and horizon year
socioeconomic data are modest reductions in the total growth in population and
single-family households, but a notable increase in multi-family households. The change
in total employment is reduced by 31%, with the most significant reduction in
employment growth in the retail sector (-63%), while the industrial sector saw only a
slight reduction in total employment growth compared to the 2016 Nexus Update (5%).
The Government/public sector employment growth has increased by 27% from the
2016 Nexus Study to the 2024 Nexus Study, although the total number of jobs increased
is relatively small as a share of the total employment. Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4 provide a
comparison of the changes in population, households and employment between the
2016 Nexus Update and the 2024 Nexus Update. The table and figure clearly illustrate
the reduction in the rate of growth in Western Riverside County largely attributable to
the effects of the economic recession. This reduced rate of growth in the region will
serve as the basis for reevaluating the level of impact of new development on the
transportation system in the next section, as well as providing the basis for the
determination of the fair share fee for each land use type.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
19
Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County
(Existing to Future Change Comparison)
SED Type 2016 Update
(2012-2040)
2024 Update
(2018-2045) Difference Percent
Total Population 655,698 628,436 -27,262 -4%
Total Households 250,082 257,826 7,744 3%
Single-Family 173,043 167,491 -5,552 -3%
Multi-Family 77,039 90,335 13,296 17%
Total Employment 400,668 276,022 -124,646 -31%
TUMF Industrial 80,592 76,581 -4,011 -5%
TUMF Retail 35,841 13,115 -22,726 -63%
TUMF Service 274,720 174,255 -100,465 -37%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 9,515 12,071 2,556 27%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
20
Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County
(Existing to Future Change Comparison)
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
21
3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF
All new developments have some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a
community, city or county due to an increase in travel demand. Increasing usage of
the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing VMT, traffic
congestion and decreasing the level of service (LOS)3. To meet the increased travel
demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become
necessary to sustain pre-development traffic conditions.
The projected growth in Western Riverside County (33% growth in population and 48%
growth in employment in 27 years) and the related growth in VMT can be expected to
increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in
the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial highways
and roadways that carry a significant number of the trips between cities, since
traditional sources of transportation improvement funding (such as the gasoline tax and
local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to
serve new development. Development exactions generally provide only a fraction of
the improvements with those being confined to the area immediately adjacent to the
respective development, and the broad-based county-level funding sources (i.e.,
Riverside County’s half-cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small
portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements.
This section documents the existing and future congestion levels that demonstrate the
need for future improvements to the transportation system to specifically mitigate the
cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. It then describes the
TUMF concept that has been developed to fund future new developments’ fair share of
needed improvements.
The forecast of future congestion levels is derived from Year 2045 No-Build travel
demand forecasts for Western Riverside County developed using RivCoM. The Year
2045 No-Build scenario evaluates the effects of 2045 population, employment and
resultant traffic generation on the 2021 existing arterial highway network.
3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels
To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on
the existing arterial highway system in Western Riverside County, existing (2018) and
future (2045) SED were modeled on the existing (2021) arterial highway network using
RivCoM. To quantify traffic growth impacts, various traffic measures of effectiveness
were calculated for the AM and PM peak periods for each of the two scenarios. The
3 The Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition – A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis
(Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 2016,
Volume 1 – Concepts, pp 5-3) describes LOS as a “quantitative stratification of performance
measure or measures representing quality of service….HCM defines six levels of service, ranging
from A to F, for each service measure or combination of measures. LOS A represents the best
operating conditions from the traveler’s perspective and LOS F the worst.”
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
22
WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for
the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period
performance measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total
VMT, total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD),
and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E). These results were
tabulated in Table 3.1. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix C.
Total Arterial VMT, VHT, VHD and LOS E Threshold VMT were calculated to include all
principal arterials, minor arterials and major connectors, respectively. Regional values
for each threshold were calculated for a total of all facilities including arterials,
freeways, freeway ramps and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.
Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 Existing to 2045
No-Build)
Measure of Performance*
Peak Periods (Total)
2018 Existing 2045 No-Build % Change % Annual
VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 23,284,724 29,897,254 28% 0.9%
VMT - FREEWAYS 13,514,522 15,490,284 15% 0.5%
VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 9,770,202 14,406,970 47% 1.4%
TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 6,216,985 8,597,200 38% 1.2%
VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 541,350 915,439 69% 2.0%
VHT - FREEWAYS 263,792 399,128 51% 1.5%
VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 277,558 516,311 86% 2.3%
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 174,455 320,869 84% 2.3%
VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 108,900 338,056 210% 4.3%
VHD - FREEWAYS 66,156 170,649 158% 3.6%
VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 42,745 167,407 292% 5.2%
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 33,249 124,863 276% 5.0%
VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 5,605,070 13,369,483 139% 3.3%
VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS 4,725,471 9,316,891 97% 2.5%
VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 879,599 4,052,592 361% 5.8%
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 765,782 3,184,133 316% 5.4%
% of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 12% 37%
* Based on RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network as existing in December
2021
NOTES:
Volume is adjusted by PCE factor
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system)
VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system)
VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system
based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time)
LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios).
LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
23
The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values:
The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2018
Existing and 2045 No-Build scenarios, and the average annual change between 2018
Existing and 2044 No-Build. As can be seen from the RivCoM outputs summarized in
Table 3.1, the additional traffic generated by new development will cause peak period
VMT on the arterial highway network to increase by approximately 47% by the year
2045 (approximately 1.4% per year). In the absence of additional improvements to the
transportation network in Western Riverside County, the growth in VMT will cause
congestion on the highway system to increase almost exponentially, with the most
significant increase in congestion observed on the arterial highway system that includes
the TUMF Network. Many facilities will experience a significant increase in vehicle delay
and deterioration in LOS to unacceptable levels because of new development and the
associated growth in traffic. According to the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition – A
Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (Transportation Research Board, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 2016), “LOS E describes operation at or near
capacity. Operations…at this level are highly volatile because there are virtually no
usable gaps within the traffic stream, leaving little room to maneuver within the traffic
stream. Any disruption to the traffic stream, such as vehicles entering…or a vehicle
changing lanes, can establish a disruption wave that propagates throughout the
upstream traffic stream….the physical and psychological comfort afforded drivers is
poor.”
The Congestion Management Program for Riverside County (CMP) published by the
Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 2011 designates LOS E as the
“traffic standards must be set no lower than LOS E for any segment or intersection along
the CMP System of Highways and Roadways” in Riverside County. “The intent of the
CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting
reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new
transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air
quality.” 4 The CMP provides a mechanism for monitoring congestion on the highway
system and, where congestion is observed, establishes procedures for developing a
deficiency plan to address improvement needs. The reactive nature of the CMP to
identify and remediate existing congestion differs from the proactive nature of the TUMF
program to anticipate and provide for future traffic needs. For this reason, the TUMF
4 Congestion Management Program for Riverside County – Executive Summary (Riverside County
Transportation Commission, 2011) Page ES-3, ES-1
VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume
VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume
VHD = VHT – (Free-flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume)
VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90)
Note: Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio thresholds for LOS E are based on the Transportation Research Board 2010
Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways
with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 14-5, Chapter 14, Page 14-5).
.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
24
program follows the guidance of the Highway Capacity Manual in establishing LOS E as
the threshold for unacceptable level of service, and subsequently as the basis for
measuring system performance and accounting for existing needs. This approach
ensures a more conservative accounting of existing system needs as part of the
determination of the “fair share” of mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of future
new development on the transportation system.
The continuing need for a mitigation fee on new development is shown by the adverse
impact that new development will have on Western Riverside County’s transportation
infrastructure, and particularly the arterial highway network. As a result of the new
development and associated growth in population and employment in Western
Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure
with the total peak period VMT on the Western Riverside County Regional System of
Highways and Arterials (RSHA; also referred to as the TUMF Network) estimated to
increase by approximately 38% or 1.2% compounded annually.
As shown in Table 3.1, the peak period VMT on arterial facilities within the TUMF Network
experiencing LOS E or worse will increase by approximately 316% or 5.4% compounded
annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2018 and 2045. By 2045,
37% of the total VMT on the TUMF arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on
facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the TUMF arterial
highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists
on TUMF arterial highways during the peak periods will increase by approximately 5.0%
per year. The combined influences of increased travel demand and worsened LOS
that manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay highlighting the continuing
need to complete substantial capacity expansion on the TUMF arterial highway system
to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of increased travel demand resulting from
new development.
The RivCoM outputs summarized in Table 3.1 clearly demonstrate that the travel
demands generated by future new development in the region will lead to increasing
levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The need to improve
these roadways to accommodate the anticipated growth in VMT and relieve future
congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the
additional travel demand.
3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels
In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving
future travel demand in the region. Transit represents a critical component of the
transportation system by providing an alternative mode choice for those not wanting to
use an automobile, and particularly for those who do not readily have access to an
automobile. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows
because of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also
expected to grow.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
25
While some future transit trips will be accommodated by inter-regional transit services
such as Metrolink, a substantial number of the trips within Western Riverside County will
be served by bus transit services and for this reason the provision of regional bus transit
service is considered integral to addressing the cumulative regional transportation
impacts of new developments. Regional bus transit services within Western Riverside
County are primarily provided by RTA.
In 2023, RTA reported average weekday daily ridership of 16,575 on their network of
buses5. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS forecasts for RTA average weekday daily ridership in
2045 is 57,282. These values were used to represent the existing and future transit trips
consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section 3.1. The existing and
future transit ridership were compared to assess the impact of new development on
transit demand. Average weekday daily ridership would be expected to grow by
40,707 between 2023 and 2045, or an average increase of 1,850 weekday daily riders
each year. Average weekday daily system ridership is summarized in Appendix D.
The future growth in demand for public transit services is reflective of the cumulative
regional impacts of new development, and the associated increase in demand for all
types of transportation infrastructure and services to accommodate this growth.
Furthermore, bus transit ridership is expected to grow as the improved services being
planned and implemented by RTA attract new riders and encourages existing riders to
use transit more often as an alternative to driving. Attracting additional riders to bus
transit services contributes to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation
impacts of new development by reducing the number of trips that need to be served
on the highway system. The need to provide additional bus transit services within
Western Riverside County to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the
future development that generates the demand.
3.3 The TUMF Concept
A sizable percentage of trip-making for any given local community extends beyond the
bounds of the individual community as residents pursue employment, education,
shopping and entertainment opportunities elsewhere. As new development occurs
within a particular local community, this dispersal of trips of all purposes by new
residents and the new business that serve them generates additional travel demand
and contributes to the need for transportation improvements within their community
and in the other communities of Western Riverside County. The idea behind a uniform
mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute uniformly
to paying the fair share cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these
trips between communities. Thus, the fee is intended to be used primarily to improve
5 RTA, like most public transportation agencies, have seen significant short-term declines in transit ridership
resulting from changes in travel demands, mode choice and trip distribution following the COVID-19
pandemic. RTA’s 2016 actual average weekday daily ridership was 30,700. Post COVID-19, the RTA actual
average weekday daily ridership in 2023 was 16,575, a decline of almost 50% of pre-pandemic ridership
levels. These levels would be expected to continue to recover toward pre-pandemic levels as potential
riders resume more regular work schedules, and apprehension toward the use of transit services for public
health reasons wane.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
26
transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (in
particular, arterial roadways and regional bus transit services).
Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, while some also serve trips
between more distant communities within the region. The differing roadway functions
led to the concept of using a portion of the fee revenues for a backbone system of
arterial roadways that serve the longer-distance trips (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the
entire region), while using a second portion of the fee revenues for a secondary system
of arterials that serve inter-community trips within a specific subregion or zone (i.e. using
TUMF revenues from the communities most directly served by these roads – to some
extent, a return-to-source of that portion of the funds). Reflecting the importance of
public transit to provide an alternative to highway travel as part of a balanced regional
transportation strategy, a third portion of fee revenues was reserved for improvements
to regional bus transit services (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region).
Much, but not all, of the new trip-making in each area is generated by residential
development (i.e. when people move into new homes, they create new trips on the
transportation system as they travel to work, school, shopping or entertainment). Some
of the new trips are generated simply by activities associated with new businesses (i.e.
new businesses will create new trips through the delivery of goods and services, etc.).
Apart from commute trips by residents coming to and from work, and the trips of
residents coming to and from new businesses to get goods and services, the travel
demands of new businesses are not considered to be directly attributable to residential
development. The consideration of different sources of new travel demand is therefore
reflected in the concept of assessing both residential and non-residential development
for their related transportation impacts.
In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following:
A uniform fee that is levied on new development throughout Western Riverside
County.
The fee is assessed roughly proportionately on new residential and non-residential
development based on the relative impact of each new use on the transportation
system.
A portion of the fee is used to fund capacity improvements on a backbone system
of arterial roadways that serve longer-distance trips within the region; a portion of
the fee is returned to the subregion or zone in which it was generated to fund
capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that link the
communities in that area; and a portion of the fee is used to fund improvements to
regional bus transit services that serve trips between the communities within the
region.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
27
4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK
4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network
An integral element of the initial Nexus Study was the designation of the Western
Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. This network of regionally
significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway
facilities that primarily support inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and
supplement the regional freeway system. As a result, this system also represents the
extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF
funded improvements. The TUMF Network does not include the freeways of Western
Riverside County as these facilities primarily serve longer distance inter-regional trips and
a significant number of pass-through trips that have no origin or destination in Western
Riverside County6.
The TUMF Network is the system of roadways that serve inter-community trips within
Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF
funds. The RSHA for Western Riverside County was identified based on several
transportation network and performance guidelines as follows:
1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at ultimate
build-out (not including freeways).
2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between
communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County.
3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes exceeding 20,000 vehicles per day in the
future horizon year.
4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 (LOS E) or greater in the
future horizon year.
5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services.
6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional,
recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation facilities
(such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers).
Appendix E includes exhibits illustrating the various performance measures assessed
during the definition of the RSHA.
Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied these
guidelines were initially identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework
evolved from facilities where several guidelines were observed. Representatives of all
WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local
transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was subsequently endorsed by
6 Since pass-through trips have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County, new development within Western
Riverside County cannot be considered responsible for mitigating the impacts of pass-through trips. The impact of pass-
through trips and the associated cost to mitigate the impact of pass-through trips (and other inter-regional freeway trips)
is addressed in the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Western Riverside County Freeway Strategic Plan,
Phase II – Detailed Evaluation and Impact Fee Nexus Determination, Final Report dated May 31, 2008.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
28
the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF
Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee.
The RSHA is illustrated in Figure 4.1. As stated previously, the RSHA represents those
regional significant highway facilities that primarily serve inter-community trips in
Western Riverside County and therefore also represents the extents of the network of
highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements.
The TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the 2024 Nexus Update to ensure facilities
generally still met the previously described performance guidelines, and/or that the
scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network were roughly
proportional to the impacts needing to be mitigated. This review process resulted in the
removal of various facilities from the TUMF Network, as well as various changes in the
scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network. The resulting
TUMF Network used as the basis for this Nexus Update is discussed in Section 4.3 of this
report.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
30
4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network
As indicated previously, the TUMF roadway network was refined to distinguish between
facilities of “Regional Significance” and facilities of “Zonal Significance.” Facilities of
Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a
minimum of six lanes at general plan build-out7, extend across and/or between multiple
Area Planning Districts8, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in
2045. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the “backbone”
highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee is specifically
designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The backbone network
is illustrated in Figure 4.2.
Facilities of Zonal Significance (the “secondary” network) represent the balance of the
RSHA for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and
carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network,
although they are considered significant for circulation within the respective zone. A
portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the
secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG APD or zones
are illustrated in Figure 4.3.
7 Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at
general plan buildout, in some cases it was determined that there was not sufficient demand for
all additional lanes on some facilities until beyond the current timeframe of the TUMF Program
(2045). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been
identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development
through the current duration of the TUMF Program.
8 Area Planning Districts (APD) are the five aggregations of communities used for regional
planning functions within the WRCOG area. Area Planning Districts are interchangeably referred
to as TUMF Zones.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
33
4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs
To calculate a “fair share” fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost
of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative
regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development.
Estimates of the cost to improve the network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new
development were originally developed based on unit costs prepared for the
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate
(RACE)9, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates10
(TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of
actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998.
The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were
reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates and were consolidated
to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The
refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to
improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost
estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement
types eligible under the TUMF Program. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were
used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to
the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new
development.
Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were
provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs
for roadway construction were originally varied to account for variations in construction
cost (in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with
construction on level (code 1) rolling (code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain,
respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs which originally included consideration for
land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs,
condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental
mitigation costs were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs
associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses – code 1),
suburban (developed residential uses – code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses – code 3)
land uses, respectively. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were originally
varied to account for variations in cost associated with new complex, new standard (or
fully reconstructed), or major (or partially reconstructed) or minor (individual ramp
improvements) interchange improvements.
As part of the 2024 TUMF Nexus Update, the original unit cost categories were revised to
generate entirely new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction
cost, labor cost and land acquisition cost values for comparable projects within
Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed
9 Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Regional Arterial Cost
Estimate (RACE)
10 TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
34
as part of the 2024 Nexus Update to reflect the effects of significant changes in
materials, labor and land acquisition costs including the influences of supply chain
disruptions during and following the COVID-19 pandemic, and the elevated rates of
inflation prevailing in the past few years. Appendix F provides a detailed outline of the
assumptions and methodology leading to the revised TUMF unit cost assumptions
developed as part of the 2024 Nexus Update. A new category was also added to the
cost assumptions to facilitate the use of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) to
enhance traffic flows in arterial corridors that require mitigation but cannot
accommodate construction of addition lane capacity.
Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on
June 17, 2003, states that “each new transportation project will contribute to Plan
implementation. Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% - 5% of their
construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts.” This expectation is reiterated in
the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee
Study Update (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020) Section 6 which
indicates that “about 44% of the revenue for the program” is expected to be derived
from non-fee sources, including ” the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through
2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fees (TUMF).” Consistent with the MSHCP Nexus Report, an amount equal to
5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges and railroad grade
separations will be specifically included as part of TUMF Program with revenues to be
provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) for
the acquisition of land identified in the MSHCP. The relevant sections of the MSHCP
document and the most recent MSHCP Nexus Report are included in Appendix F.
Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF
network cost estimate as part of the current Nexus Update. Table 4.1 also includes a
comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions and the 2016 Nexus Study unit
cost assumptions that demonstrates the significant increases in unit costs observed
during recent years. In most cases the unit cost assumptions have more than doubled
from those used for the 2016 Nexus Study. Cost estimates are provided in current year
values as indicated.
To estimate the cost of improving the regional network to provide for traffic growth from
new development, the network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in
Section 4.1) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed improvements.
The initial list of improvements was then compared with local General Plan Circulation
Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of
regional significance. A consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost
assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the
network to mitigate for future traffic growth associated with new development. This
initial list of proposed improvements has since been revised and updated as part of
each subsequent Nexus Update to reflect the completion of projects, changing levels
of development and associated changes in travel demand and transportation system
impacts to be mitigated as part of the TUMF program.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
35
Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction
Component
Type
Original Cost
Assumptions as
published
October 18, 2002
Cost Assumptions
per 2016 Nexus
Study
July 10, 2017
Cost Assumptions
per 2024 Nexus
Update
Description
Terrain 1 $550,000 $692,000 $1,132,000 Construction cost per lane mile -
level terrain
Terrain 2 $850,000 $878,000 $1,740,000 Construction cost per lane mile -
rolling terrain
Terrain 3 $1,150,000 $1,064,000 $2,350,000 Construction cost per lane mile -
mountainous terrain
Landuse 1 $900,000 $2,509,000 $7,830,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile -
urban areas
Landuse 2 $420,000 $2,263,000 $5,440,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile -
suburban areas
Landuse 3 $240,000 $287,000 $490,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - rural
areas
Interchange 1 n/a $50,032,000 $84,190,000
Complex new
interchange/interchange
modification cost
Interchange 2 $20,000,000 $25,558,000 $43,490,000 New interchange/interchange
modification total cost
Interchange 3 $10,000,000 $12,343,000 $22,550,000 Major interchange improvement
total cost
Bridge 1 $2,000 $3,180 $4,800 Bridge total cost per lane per linear
foot
RRXing 1 $4,500,000 $6,376,000 $18,200,000 New Rail Grade Crossing per lane
RRXing 2 $2,250,000 $2,733,000 $6,900,000 Existing Rail Grade Crossing per lane
ITS 1 $686,400 Infrastructure for ITS of roadway
segments per route mile
Planning 10% 10% 10% Planning, preliminary engineering
and environmental assessment costs
based on construction cost only
Engineering 25% 25% 25%
Project study report, design,
permitting and construction
oversight costs based on
construction cost only
Contingency 10% 10% 10% Contingency costs based on total
segment cost
Administration 4% 4% TUMF program administration based
on total TUMF eligible network cost
MSHCP 5% 5% TUMF component of MSHCP based
on total TUMF eligible construction
cost
As indicated in Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4, the anticipated rate of forecasted growth in
Western Riverside County has been reduced by 4% for population, 3% for single-family
residential and 31% for employment. This reduced rate of forecasted socioeconomic
growth has a commensurate impact on the forecasted daily traffic in the region as
demonstrated by the 2016 Nexus Study VMT compared to the 2024 Nexus Update VMT
in Table 4.2. As shown in the table, the forecast peak period VMT on the TUMF arterial
network in the year 2045 as the basis for the 2024 Nexus Update is more than 5% less
than the comparable peak period VMT for 2040 used for the 2016 Nexus Study.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
36
Table 4.2 – Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County
Measure of Performance
2024 Nexus Update 2016 Nexus Study
Peak Period Peak Period
2018 Existing 2045 No-Build 2012 Existing 2040 No-Build
VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 23,284,724 29,897,254 19,532,437 29,277,587
VMT - FREEWAYS 13,514,522 15,490,284 11,019,155 14,487,570
VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 9,770,202 14,406,970 8,513,282 14,790,016
TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 6,216,985 8,597,200 5,585,202 9,089,495
Source: RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network as existing in
December 2021; RivTAM 2012 network and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by
WSP, September 2016
As a result of the reduced forecast traffic growth in the region, it is anticipated that the
cumulative regional impacts of new development on the arterial highway and transit
systems in the region is also reduced necessitating a reduction in the projects identified
on the TUMF Network to mitigate the impacts of new development. As part of the 2024
Nexus Update, the list of proposed improvements included in the initial Nexus Study and
validated during the subsequent Nexus updates was reviewed for accuracy and,
where necessary, amended to remove or modify projects that have changed in need
to mitigate impacts based on changes in the patterns of growth and travel demand
within the region. Projects completed since the adoption of the 2016 Nexus Update
were also removed from the network to reflect the fact that mitigation at these
locations is no longer required. The specific network changes were screened by the
WRCOG Public Works Committee for consistency with TUMF network guidelines
including travel demand and traffic performance.
Based on the findings of the network screening, elements of specific projects were
revised to reflect necessary network corrections and modifications to project
assumptions. A matrix summarizing the disposition of the requests received as part of
the 2024 TUMF Nexus Update was developed and is included in Appendix G.
Eligible arterial highway and street improvement types to mitigate the cumulative
regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include:
1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes
2. Construction of new Network roadway segments
3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures
4. Construction of new Network bridge structures
5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways
6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways
7. Grade separation of existing Network at-grade railroad crossings
8. Installation of ITS along Network roadway segments
All eligible improvement types, except for ITS, provide additional capacity to Network
facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in
Western Riverside County. ITS provides the ability to improve traffic flows along corridors
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
37
where capacity expansion is not possible. Following the comprehensive update of the
TUMF Program, the estimated total cost to improve the RSHA for Western Riverside
County is $4.84 billion with this cost including all arterial highway and street planning,
engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and capital construction costs, but not
including transit, MSHCP or program administration costs that will be subsequently
described. It should be noted that the full cost to improve the TUMF Network cannot be
entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for the
previous obligation of other funds to complete necessary improvements and unfunded
existing needs. Sections 4.5 and 4.6 describe the adjustments to the total TUMF
Network improvement need to account for existing needs and obligated funds.
In addition to the arterial highway and street improvement costs indicated above, the
TUMF Nexus Update included specific consideration for the TUMF Program obligation to
the MSHCP program to mitigate the impact of TUMF network improvements on species
and habitat within Western Riverside County. The TUMF obligation to MSHCP was
calculated at a rate of 5% of the total construction (capital) cost of new lane
segments, bridges and railroad grade separations on the TUMF Network. The total
obligation to the MSHCP as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is
approximately $64.6 million, although the total obligation specific to the TUMF program
is reduced to account for MSHCP obligations associated with improvements addressing
existing needs and therefore excluded from TUMF.
The TUMF 2024 Nexus Update similarly includes specific consideration of the costs
associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. The average cost for
WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program was calculated at a rate of 4% of the total
eligible cost of new lane segments (including interchanges, bridges and railroad grade
separations) on the TUMF Network and new transit services. Administration costs
incurred by WRCOG include direct salary, fringe benefit and overhead costs for
WRCOG staff assigned to administer the program and support participating
jurisdictions, and costs for consultant, legal and auditing services to support the
implementation of the TUMF program. The total cost for WRCOG administration of the
TUMF Program as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $161.2
million.
The detailed TUMF network cost calculations are provided in Section 4.7, including each
of the individual segments and cost components considered as part of the TUMF
Program, and the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment following
adjustments for obligated funding and unfunded existing needs as described in
subsequent sections.
4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System
In addition to the roadway network, public transportation plays a key role in serving
future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter-community trips is
generally provided in the form of public bus transit services and in particular express bus
or other high frequency services between strategically located community transit
centers. In Western Riverside County, these bus transit services are typically provided by
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
38
RTA. Transit needs to serve future regional travel in Western Riverside County via bus
transit include vehicle acquisitions, transit centers, express bus stop upgrades,
maintenance facilities and other associated capital improvements to develop express
bus or other high frequency inter-community transit bus services within the region.
Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF Program
as they typically serve longer inter-regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips
on the inter-regional highway system.
The network of regionally significant bus transit services represents those express bus
and other high frequency transit bus services that primarily support inter-community trips
in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional highway system and inter-
regional commuter rail services. As a result, this portion of the bus transit system also
represents the extents of the network of bus services that would be eligible for TUMF
funded improvements.
The TUMF Bus Transit Network is the system of bus services that serve inter-community
trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding
with TUMF funds. The Bus Transit Network for Western Riverside County was identified
based on several transit network and performance guidelines as follows:
1. Bus transit routes (or corridors comprised of multiple overlapping routes)
proposed to have a frequency of greater than three buses per direction
during peak hours at ultimate build out.
2. Routes or corridors that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide
connectivity between communities, both within and adjoining western
Riverside County.
3. Routes or corridors with forecast weekday bus ridership in excess of 1,000
person trips per day by 2040.
4. Routes or corridors that are proposed to provide timed interconnections with
at least four other routes or corridors at ultimate build out.
5. Routes or corridors that utilize the majority of travel along the TUMF RSHA.
6. Routes or corridors that provide direct access to areas of forecast population
and employment growth, major commercial, industrial, institutional,
recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation
facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers).
Express bus routes and other high-frequency bus transit routes and corridors in Western
Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were identified by
RTA. Updated cost estimates for improving the infrastructure serving public
transportation, including construction of transit centers and transfer facilities, express
bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements needed to develop express bus and
other high frequency bus transit service within the region were also provided by RTA.
The updated transit unit cost data provided by RTA are shown in Table 4.3.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
39
Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures
Component Type*
Original Cost
Assumptions as
published
October 18, 2002
Cost Assumptions
per 2016 Nexus
Study
July 10, 2017
Cost
Assumptions per
2024 Nexus
Update
Description
Transit Center 1 $6,000,000 $7,465,000
Relocation/expansion of
existing Regional Transit
Center with up to 14 bus
bays and park and ride
Transit Center 2 $6,000,000 $9,000,000 $11,195,000
New Regional Transit Center
with up to 14 bus bays and
park and ride
Transfer Facility $1,000,000 $1,245,000 Multiple route transfer hub
O & M Facility $50,000,000 $62,186,000 Regional Operations and
Maintenance Facility
Green Technology $100,000 ZEB technology
enhancements
Bus Stop $10,000 $40,000 $50,000 Bus Stop Amenities Upgrade
on TUMF Network
BRT Service Capital $540,000 $60,000 $75,000 BRT/Limited Stop Service
Capital (per stop**)
Vehicle Fleet 1*** $160,000 Small Sized Bus/Van
Contract Operated
Vehicle Fleet 2 $155,000 $300,000 Medium Sized Bus Contract
Operated
Vehicle Fleet 3 $325,125 $585,000 $1,271,000 Large Sized Bus Directly
Operated
COA Study $950,000 $1,150,000
Comprehensive
Operational Analysis Study
component of Nexus Study
Update
* Transit Cost Component Types were restructured as part of the 2016 Nexus Update
in accordance with the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis (January 2015)
** BRT Service Capital Cost Assumption was based on a per mile unit prior to the 2016 Nexus Update.
2016 Nexus Update uses a per stop unit cost for BRT Service Capital
*** Vehicle Fleet component was restructured as part of the 2024 Nexus Update with the inclusion of Small Sized
Bus/Van Contract Operated as Vehicle Fleet 1 and subsequent renumbering of Vehicle Fleet 2 and 3, respectively
The estimated total cost for future RTA bus transit services to accommodate forecast
transit demand is approximately $217.9 million with this cost including all planning,
engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost
estimates are included in Section 4.7. The full cost to improve RTA bus transit services
cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account
for existing needs. Section 4.6 describes the adjustments to the total transit cost to
account for existing needs.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
40
4.5 Existing Obligated Funding
For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has
previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary
improvements. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of
needed improvements to the TUMF system, the funded cost of these improvements will
not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF Program. As a result,
the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated
funds.
To determine the availability of obligated funds, WRCOG staff, in conjunction with RCTC
staff, completed a review of the current Federal Transportation improvement Program
(FTIP) to identify TUMF eligible projects that were also programmed to receive funding
from alternate sources. A table summarizing the obligated funds for segments of the
TUMF network is included in Appendix H. A total of $382.9 million in obligated funding
was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated total TUMF network
project cost was subsequently reduced by this amount.
4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs
A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (as presented in Table
3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently
experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service. In addition,
demand for inter-community transit service already exists and future utilization of
proposed inter-community transit services will partially satisfy this existing demand. The
need to improve these portions of the system is generated, at least in part, by existing
demand, rather than solely the cumulative regional impacts of future new
development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost
share of improvements providing for this existing need.
To account for existing need in the TUMF Network, the cost for facilities identified as
currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted. This was done by identifying the portion
of any segment of the TUMF Network with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of greater
than 0.9 (the threshold for LOS E) in the RivCoM 2018 Existing scenario and extracting
the share of the overall facility cost to improve that portion. This cost adjustment
provides for the mitigation of incremental traffic growth on those TUMF segments with
an existing high level of congestion. The following approach was applied to account
for incremental traffic growth associated with new development as part of the existing
need methodology:
1. Facilities with an existing need were identified by reviewing the RivCoM 2018
Existing scenario assigned traffic on the 2021 existing network and delineating
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
41
those facilities included on the TUMF Cost Fee Summary Table that have an
average directional v/c exceeding 0.9011.
a. Weighted directional v/c values were used to determine existing need for
network segments, which was calculated by:
i. Determining the length for the portion of each segment (model
link), and calculating the ratio of link length to the overall segment
length
ii. Generating the average directional v/c for each link, for both
directions in AM and PM periods, and multiplying by link/segment
length ratio
iii. Determining the maximum peak-period peak-direction v/c for
each link, representing the highest directional v/c in either AM or
PM
iv. Calculating weighted average v/c for each TUMF segment, based
on the sum of all weighted max v/c values of each link within a
segment
b. A similar method was used to determine existing need for spot
improvements including interchanges, railroad crossings and bridges.
However, no weighting was used in the calculation of existing need for
spot improvements. For these facilities, the peak-period peak-direction
v/c values (highest directional v/c in either AM or PM) were utilized in the
existing need calculation. This was based on the individual link within a
network segment where a bridge or railroad crossing is located, or on-
and off-ramps in the case of interchanges.
2. Initial costs of addressing the existing need were calculated by estimating the
share of a particular roadway segments “new lane” cost, or individual spot
improvement cost (including all associated ROW and soft costs).
3. Incremental growth in v/c was determined by comparing the average
directional exisitng year v/c for the TUMF facilities (delineated under step one)
with the horizon year v/c for the corresponding segments and spot
improvements calculated based on the RivCoM 2045 No-Build scenario assigned
traffic on the 2021 existing network using the same methodology as the existing
year v/c.
11 The RivCoM 2021 Existing Network used for the TUMF Nexus Study analyses reflects the RivCoM 2018 base
year network augmented to include highways facilities on the TUMF Network as they existed in December
2021. A second version of the base network was also developed adding only those facilities that had been
identified on the 2016 TUMF Nexus study 2040 Build scenario that did not currently exist in December 2021
and therefore were not represented by a link(s) in the RivCoM base network. The Supplemental 2021
Existing Network was utilized as the basis for determining existing and future v/c for only those projects that
did not currently exist on the 2021 TUMF Network.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
42
4. The proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development was
determined by dividing the result of step three with the total 2045 No-Build
scenario v/c exceeding LOS E.
5. For those segments experiencing a net increase in v/c over the base year, TUMF
will ‘discount’ the cost of existing need improvements by the proportion of the
incremental v/c growth through 2045 No-Build compared to the 2018 Baseline
v/c (up to a maximum of 100%).
The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs (including the related
MSHCP obligation) totals $582.6 million. Appendix H includes a detailed breakdown of
the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the
associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment and spot
improvement experiencing unacceptable LOS.
For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was
determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit
trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement
needs is $63.0 million representing 28.9% of the TUMF transit component. Appendix H
includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the
existing transit need cost.
4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost
A total of $382.9 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the
TUMF system. Since these improvements are already funded with other available
revenue sources, the funded portion of these projects cannot also be funded with TUMF
revenues. Furthermore, the total cost of the unfunded existing improvement need is
$646.9 million. These improvements are needed to mitigate existing transportation
deficiencies and therefore their costs cannot be assigned to new development through
TUMF.
Based on the estimated costs described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, the total value to
complete the identified TUMF network and transit improvements, and administer the
program is $5.28 billion. Having accounted for obligated funds and unfunded existing
needs as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, respectively, the estimated maximum
eligible value of the TUMF Program is $4.24 billion. The maximum eligible value of the
TUMF Program includes approximately $3.87 billion in eligible arterial highway and street
related improvements and $154.8 million in eligible transit related improvements. An
additional $53.9 million is eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of
eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and
wildlife habitat, while $161.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG
to administer the TUMF Program.
Figure 4.4 illustrates the various improvements to the RSHA included as part of the TUMF
network cost calculation. Table 4.4 summarizes the TUMF network cost calculations for
each of the individual segments. This table also identifies the maximum eligible TUMF
share for each segment having accounted for obligated funding and unfunded
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
43
existing need. A detailed breakdown of the individual cost components and values for
the various TUMF Network segments is included in Appendix H. Table 4.5 outlines the
detailed transit component cost estimates. It should be noted that the detailed cost
tables (and fee levels) are subject to regular review and updating by WRCOG and
therefore WRCOG should be contacted directly to obtain the most recently adopted
version of these tables (and to confirm the corresponding fee level).
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
45
Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Central Menifee Ethanac Goetz Murrieta $0 $0
Central Menifee Ethanac Murrieta I-215 $0 $0
Central Menifee Ethanac I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Central Menifee Ethanac Sherman Matthews $2,674,000 $2,674,000
Central Menifee Ethanac BNSF San Jacinto Branch railroad crossing $105,560,000 $105,560,000
Central Menifee Menifee SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson $1,307,000 $1,307,000
Central Menifee Menifee Salt Creek bridge $4,384,000 $4,384,000
Central Menifee Menifee Simpson Aldergate $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Aldergate Newport $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Newport Holland $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Holland Garbani $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Garbani Scott $4,353,000 $4,353,000
Central Menifee Menifee/Whitewood Scott Murrieta City Limit $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Goetz Murrieta $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Murrieta I-215 $1,130,000 $1,130,000
Central Menifee Newport I-215 Menifee $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Menifee Lindenberger $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Lindenberger SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0
Central Menifee Scott I-215 Briggs $8,635,000 $8,635,000
Central Menifee Scott I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta $4,388,000 $4,388,000
Central Menifee Scott Murrieta I-215 $16,949,000 $12,949,000
Central Menifee SR-74 Matthews Briggs $8,254,000 $8,254,000
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro I-215 Perris $13,420,000 $13,420,000
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Perris Nason $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Nason Moreno Beach $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Moreno Beach Gilman Springs $18,019,000 $18,019,000
Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 Alessandro $7,291,000 $7,291,000
Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 interchange $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris Reche Vista Ironwood $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris Ironwood Sunnymead $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $11,192,000
Central Moreno Valley Perris Sunnymead Cactus $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris Cactus Harley Knox $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Reche Vista Country Heacock $7,486,000 $3,799,000
Central Perris 11th/Case Perris Goetz $4,582,000 $4,582,000
Central Perris Case Goetz I-215 $20,876,000 $20,876,000
Central Perris Case San Jacinto River bridge $1,740,000 $1,235,000
Central Perris Ethanac Keystone Goetz $6,056,000 $6,056,000
Central Perris Ethanac San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000
Central Perris Ethanac I-215 Sherman $5,316,000 $5,316,000
Central Perris Goetz Case Ethanac $1,507,000 $999,000
Central Perris Goetz San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $3,398,000
Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) I-215 Perris $15,655,000 $15,655,000
Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) Perris Evans $22,985,000 $22,985,000
Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia) Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000
Central Perris Perris Harley Knox Ramona $0 $0
Central Perris Perris Ramona Citrus $7,063,000 $7,063,000
Central Perris Perris Citrus Nuevo $0 $0
Central Perris Perris Nuevo 11th $6,927,000 $6,927,000
Central Perris Perris I-215 overcrossing bridge $0 $0
Central Perris Ramona I-215 Perris $5,039,000 $5,039,000
Central Perris Ramona I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $7,725,000
Central Perris Ramona Perris Evans $0 $0
Central Perris Ramona Evans Mid-County (2,800 ft E of Rider) $0 $0
Central Perris SR-74 (4th) Ellis I-215 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Ethanac SR-74 Keystone $4,666,000 $4,666,000
Central Unincorporated Gilman Springs Alessandro Bridge Road $30,601,000 $30,601,000
Central Unincorporated Menifee Nuevo SR-74 (Pinacate) $16,684,000 $16,684,000
Central Unincorporated Mid-County Evans Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) $12,156,000 $12,156,000
Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider) Pico Avenue $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Pico Avenue Bridge Road $47,769,000 $47,769,000
Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) San Jacinto River bridge $36,192,000 $36,192,000
Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon San Bernardino County Reche Vista $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Reche Vista Reche Canyon Country $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Scott Briggs SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0
Central Unincorporated SR-74 Ethanac Ellis $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 Temescal Canyon $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 interchange $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Paseo Grande Lincoln $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Wardlow Wash bridge $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Lincoln California $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill California I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Green River SR-91 Dominguez Ranch $0 $0
Northwest Corona Green River Dominguez Ranch Palisades $0 $0
Northwest Corona Green River Palisades Paseo Grande $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman San Bernardino County 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek $648,000 $648,000
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Cucamonga Creek bridge $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek Harrison $866,000 $866,000
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Harrison Sumner $488,000 $488,000
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Sumner Scholar $7,625,000 $7,625,000
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Scholar A Street $119,000 $119,000
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman A Street Hamner $209,000 $209,000
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
46
Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren SR-60 Bellegrave $23,928,000 $10,461,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren Bellegrave Santa Ana River $60,900,000 $0
Northwest Riverside Alessandro Arlington Trautwein $2,410,000 $2,410,000
Northwest Riverside Arlington La Sierra Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Arlington Magnolia Alessandro $46,465,000 $46,465,000
Northwest Riverside Van Buren Santa Ana River SR-91 $5,230,000 $4,392,000
Northwest Riverside Van Buren SR-91 Mockingbird Canyon $39,493,000 $21,292,000
Northwest Riverside Van Buren Wood Trautwein $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Van Buren Trautwein Orange Terrace $7,574,000 $7,574,000
Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Trautwein Vista Grande $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Vista Grande I-215 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco El Sobrante Harley John $10,580,000 $9,817,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harley John Harvil $166,492,000 $166,492,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harvil I-215 $1,238,000 $1,238,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Canyon La Sierra $49,596,000 $35,953,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Wash bridge $4,872,000 $1,907,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco La Sierra El Sobrante $96,453,000 $96,453,000
Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Mockingbird Canyon Wood $67,429,000 $67,429,000
Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Orange Terrace I-215 $0 $0
Pass Banning Highland Springs Wilson (8th) Sun Lakes $0 $0
Pass Banning Highland Springs I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $32,516,000
Pass Banning Highland Springs Oak Valley (14th) Wilson (8th) $0 $0
Pass Banning Highland Springs Cherry Valley Oak Valley (14th) $0 $0
Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 Morongo Trail (Apache Trail) $50,110,000 $50,110,000
Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000
Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South San Gorgonio bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000
Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South UP/Hargrave railroad crossing $52,780,000 $52,780,000
Pass Beaumont Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) I-10 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero Oak Valley (San Timoteo Canyon) SR-60 $1,100,000 $1,100,000
Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 interchange $63,061,000 $29,561,000
Pass Beaumont Potrero UP railroad crossing $40,020,000 $40,020,000
Pass Beaumont Potrero Noble Creek bridge $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 4th $0 $0
Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont) I-10 California $0 $0
Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont) I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $7,408,000
Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $59,773,000
Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley Roberts St Roberts Rd $3,053,000 $3,053,000
Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Bellflower Noble $6,411,000 $6,411,000
Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Highland Springs Bellflower $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Noble Roberts St $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley San Timoteo Wash bridge $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated SR-79 (Lamb Canyon) California Gilman Springs $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Warren Sanderson $7,726,000 $7,726,000
San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Sanderson State $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 Winchester Warren $35,208,000 $35,208,000
San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona) Warren Sanderson $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona) Sanderson/SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) interchange $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Sanderson State $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona State Main $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Main Cedar $31,518,000 $26,928,000
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Cedar SR-74 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni SR-79 (Winchester) Warren $13,508,000 $13,508,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni San Diego Aqueduct bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Bridge Sanderson $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona) Bridge Warren $9,221,000 $9,221,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-74 Briggs SR-79 (Winchester) $15,417,000 $15,417,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) SR-74 (Florida) Domenigoni $13,901,000 $13,901,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) San Diego Aqueduct bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass) Domenigoni Winchester $6,542,000 $6,542,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (San Jacinto Bypass) Mid-County (Ramona) SR-74 (Florida) $56,690,000 $56,690,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson) Gilman Springs Ramona $6,899,000 $2,555,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson) San Jacinto River bridge $19,488,000 $7,651,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Domenigoni Keller $65,022,000 $65,022,000
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
47
Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Southwest Canyon Lake Goetz Railroad Canyon Newport $0 $0
Southwest Canyon Lake Railroad Canyon Canyon Hills Goetz $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 Canyon Hills $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 interchange $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 I-15 interchange $63,061,000 $24,162,000
Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Copper Craft Toulon $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Toulon I-215 $2,076,000 $2,076,000
Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith I-215 Whitewood $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Murrieta Hot Springs Winchester Creek $7,321,000 $7,321,000
Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date) Winchester Creek Margarita $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Menifee City Limit Keller $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Keller Clinton Keith $0 $0
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Jefferson Diaz $3,929,000 $3,929,000
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry) Murrieta Creek bridge $5,846,000 $5,846,000
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Margarita Ynez $0 $0
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) Ynez Jefferson $5,010,000 $5,010,000
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date) I-15 interchange $122,076,000 $122,076,000
Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester) Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson $2,697,000 $2,697,000
Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester) I-15 interchange $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Diaz) Cherry Rancho California $2,285,000 $2,285,000
Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga) Rancho California SR-79 (Front) $23,629,000 $23,629,000
Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga) I-15 interchange $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga) Murrieta Creek bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000
Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR-79 Eastern Bypass $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Whitewood SR-79 $5,539,000 $5,539,000
Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Warm Springs Creek bridge $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated SR-74 I-15 Ethanac $27,699,000 $26,347,000
Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Keller Thompson $34,213,000 $34,213,000
Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Thompson La Alba $27,699,000 $27,699,000
Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) La Alba Hunter $7,854,000 $3,042,000
Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) Hunter Murrieta Hot Springs $595,000 $442,000
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 Monte Vista $1,362,000 $1,362,000
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Monte Vista Sunset $24,818,000 $24,818,000
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $24,613,000
Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith Palomar I-15 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith I-15 Copper Craft $5,030,000 $0
Subtotal $2,331,921,000 $1,961,707,000
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
48
Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Central Menifee Briggs Newport Scott $0 $0
Central Menifee Briggs SR-74 (Pinacate) Simpson $2,991,000 $2,991,000
Central Menifee Briggs Simpson Old Newport $5,430,000 $5,430,000
Central Menifee Briggs Salt Creek bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000
Central Menifee Garbani I-215 interchange $63,061,000 $42,483,000
Central Menifee Goetz Juanita Lesser Lane $11,378,000 $11,378,000
Central Menifee Goetz Newport Juanita $0 $0
Central Menifee Holland Murrieta Bradley $15,708,000 $15,708,000
Central Menifee Holland Bradley Haun $11,439,000 $11,439,000
Central Menifee Holland Haun Antelope $9,456,000 $9,456,000
Central Menifee Holland I-215 overcrossing bridge $9,744,000 $9,744,000
Central Menifee Holland Antelope Menifee $3,844,000 $3,844,000
Central Menifee McCall I-215 Aspel $5,354,000 $5,354,000
Central Menifee McCall I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee $2,288,000 $2,288,000
Central Menifee Murrieta Ethanac McCall $0 $0
Central Menifee Murrieta McCall Newport $7,967,000 $7,967,000
Central Menifee Murrieta Newport Bundy Canyon $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 Heacock $5,617,000 $5,617,000
Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day Ironwood SR-60 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 interchange $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 Eucalyptus $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus I-215 Towngate $8,843,000 $8,843,000
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Towngate Frederick $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Frederick Heacock $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Heacock Kitching $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Kitching Moreno Beach $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Moreno Beach Theodore $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Frederick SR-60 Alessandro $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock Cactus San Michele $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock Reche Vista Cactus $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock San Michele Harley Knox $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Ironwood SR-60 Day $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Ironwood Day Heacock $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Lasselle Alessandro John F Kennedy $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Lasselle John F Kennedy Oleander $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach Reche Canyon SR-60 $18,797,000 $18,797,000
Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach SR-60 overcrossing bridge $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Nason SR-60 Alessandro $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass Ironwood SR-60 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Ironwood $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Locust $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Redlands Locust Alessandro $39,789,000 $39,789,000
Central Moreno Valley Redlands SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 Eucalyptus $3,966,000 $3,966,000
Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Central Perris Ellis Goetz Evans $9,526,000 $9,526,000
Central Perris Evans Oleander Ramona $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Ramona Morgan $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Morgan Rider $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Rider Placentia $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Placentia Nuevo $6,492,000 $6,492,000
Central Perris Evans Nuevo Ellis $17,705,000 $17,705,000
Central Perris Evans San Jacinto River bridge $11,136,000 $11,136,000
Central Perris Evans I-215 bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000
Central Perris Goetz Lesser Ethanac $7,845,000 $7,845,000
Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 Indian $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 interchange $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Perris $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Perris Redlands $0 $0
Central Perris Nuevo I-215 Murrieta $16,971,000 $16,971,000
Central Perris Nuevo I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $19,736,000
Central Perris Nuevo Murrieta Dunlap $4,367,000 $4,367,000
Central Perris Nuevo Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge $0 $0
Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 Ethanac $0 $0
Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews) I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $21,835,000
Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 Mt Vernon $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Center (Main) I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $11,912,000
Central Unincorporated Center (Main) BNSF railroad crossing $20,010,000 $20,010,000
Central Unincorporated Ellis Post SR-74 $11,550,000 $11,550,000
Central Unincorporated Mount Vernon/CETAP Corridor Center Pigeon Pass $2,582,000 $2,582,000
Central Unincorporated Nuevo Dunlap Menifee $8,737,000 $2,505,000
Central Unincorporated Nuevo San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000
Central Unincorporated Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Mount Vernon $8,106,000 $8,106,000
Central Unincorporated Post Santa Rosa Mine Ellis $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Redlands San Timoteo Canyon Locust $0 $0
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
49
Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Northwest Corona 6th SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Corona Auto Center Railroad SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco Bedford Canyon I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Hidden Valley Norco Hills McKinley $0 $0
Northwest Corona Lincoln Parkridge Ontario $0 $0
Northwest Corona Magnolia 6th Sherborn $7,054,000 $6,419,000
Northwest Corona Magnolia Temescal Creek bridge $4,176,000 $3,580,000
Northwest Corona Magnolia Sherborn Rimpau $0 $0
Northwest Corona Magnolia Rimpau Ontario $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Grand Ontario $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Ontario Foothill $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Hidden Valley Parkridge $5,314,000 $4,389,000
Northwest Corona Main Parkridge SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main SR-91 S. Grand $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Hidden Valley Promenade $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Promenade SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Arlington Channel bridge $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley BNSF railroad crossing $105,560,000 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario I-15 El Cerrito $13,451,000 $13,451,000
Northwest Corona Ontario Lincoln Buena Vista $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Buena Vista Main $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Main Kellogg $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Kellogg Fullerton $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Fullerton Rimpau $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Rimpau I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Railroad Auto Club Buena Vista $0 $0
Northwest Corona Railroad BNSF railroad crossing $40,020,000 $40,020,000
Northwest Corona Railroad Buena Vista Main (at Grand) $0 $0
Northwest Corona River Corydon Main $0 $0
Northwest Corona Serfas Club SR-91 Green River $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Archibald Remington River $3,382,000 $3,382,000
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Mission Bellegrave $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Bellegrave Amberhill $199,000 $199,000
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Amberhill Limonite $2,787,000 $2,787,000
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Limonite Schleisman $991,000 $991,000
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Schleisman Santa Ana River $5,533,000 $3,675,000
Northwest Eastvale Hellman Schleisman Walters $419,000 $419,000
Northwest Eastvale Hellman Walters River $21,503,000 $21,503,000
Northwest Eastvale Hellman Cucamonga Creek bridge $3,828,000 $3,828,000
Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 Eastvale Gateway $289,000 $289,000
Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 interchange $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Eastvale Gateway Hamner $255,000 $255,000
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Hamner Sumner $1,094,000 $1,094,000
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Sumner Harrison $497,000 $497,000
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Harrison Archibald $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Archibald Hellman (Keller SBD Co.) $2,208,000 $2,208,000
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge $13,920,000 $0
Northwest Eastvale River Hellman Archibald $5,948,000 $5,948,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Armstrong San Bernardino County Valley $6,192,000 $6,192,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Bellegrave Cantu-Galleano Ranch Van Buren $464,000 $464,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Cantu-Galleano Ranch Wineville Bellegrave $793,000 $793,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda Philadelphia SR-60 $1,515,000 $989,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda SR-60 Limonite $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite I-15 Wineville $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Wineville Etiwanda $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Etiwanda Van Buren $2,981,000 $2,981,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Van Buren Clay $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Clay Riverview $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Rubidoux Santa Ana River $5,181,000 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Santa Ana River bridge $13,920,000 $6,204,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission Milliken SR-60 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission SR-60 Santa Ana River $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Riverview Limonite Mission $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux Pine Mission $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $9,051,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Valley Armstrong Mission $0 $0
Northwest Norco 1st Parkridge Mountain $0 $0
Northwest Norco 1st Mountain Hamner $0 $0
Northwest Norco 2nd River I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 6th Hamner California $0 $0
Northwest Norco 6th I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $3,489,000
Northwest Norco Arlington Crestview Fairhaven $4,342,000 $4,342,000
Northwest Norco California Arlington 6th $15,237,000 $12,525,000
Northwest Norco Corydon River 5th $0 $0
Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River bridge $33,408,000 $11,455,000
Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River Hidden Valley $49,591,000 $49,591,000
Northwest Norco Hidden Valley I-15 Norco Hills $0 $0
Northwest Norco Hidden Valley Hamner I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Norco Norco Corydon Hamner $0 $0
Northwest Norco North California Crestview $0 $0
Northwest Norco River Archibald Corydon $1,743,000 $1,109,000
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
50
Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Northwest Riverside 14th Market Martin Luther King $0 $0
Northwest Riverside 1st Market Main $0 $0
Northwest Riverside 3rd SR-91 I-215 $1,941,000 $1,941,000
Northwest Riverside 3rd BNSF railroad crossing $105,560,000 $30,560,000
Northwest Riverside Adams Arlington SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 Lincoln $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 interchange $32,698,000 $3,262,000
Northwest Riverside Arlington Fairhaven La Sierra $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Buena Vista Santa Ana River Redwood $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Martin Luther King Central $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Central Country Club $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Country Club Via Vista $4,996,000 $1,593,000
Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Via Vista Alessandro $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Chicago I-215/SR-60 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Alessandro SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Van Buren Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Chicago Alessandro Spruce $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Chicago Spruce Columbia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Columbia Main Iowa $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Columbia I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $9,050,000
Northwest Riverside Iowa Center 3rd $30,272,000 $30,272,000
Northwest Riverside Iowa 3rd University $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Iowa University Martin Luther King $0 $0
Northwest Riverside JFK Trautwein Wood $1,880,000 $1,880,000
Northwest Riverside La Sierra Arlington SR-91 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside La Sierra SR-91 Indiana $192,000 $192,000
Northwest Riverside La Sierra Indiana Victoria $778,000 $778,000
Northwest Riverside Lemon (NB One way) Mission Inn University $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Van Buren Jefferson $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Jefferson Washington $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Washington Victoria $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Madison SR-91 Victoria $853,000 $853,000
Northwest Riverside Madison BNSF railroad crossing $20,010,000 $20,010,000
Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF Railroad Tyler $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF railroad crossing $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia Tyler Harrison $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia Harrison 14th $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Main 1st San Bernardino County $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Market 14th Santa Ana River $9,491,000 $9,491,000
Northwest Riverside Martin Luther King 14th I-215/SR-60 $24,031,000 $24,031,000
Northwest Riverside Mission Inn Redwood Lemon $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Redwood (SB One way) Mission Inn University $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Trautwein Alessandro Van Buren $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 interchange $63,061,000 $21,814,000
Northwest Riverside Tyler Magnolia Hole $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler Hole Wells $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler Wells Arlington $0 $0
Northwest Riverside University Redwood SR-91 $859,000 $859,000
Northwest Riverside University SR-91 I-215/SR-60 $2,067,000 $2,067,000
Northwest Riverside Victoria Lincoln Arlington $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Victoria Madison Washington $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Washington Victoria Hermosa $27,018,000 $27,018,000
Northwest Riverside Wood JFK Van Buren $3,053,000 $3,053,000
Northwest Riverside Wood Van Buren Bergamont $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Wood Bergamont Krameria $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Cantu-Galleano Ranch Hamner Wineville $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Dos Lagos (Weirick) Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated El Cerrito I-15 Ontario $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated El Sobrante Mockingbird Canyon Cajalco $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Washington Scottsdale $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Scottsdale Cajalco $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra Victoria El Sobrante $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra El Sobrante Cajalco $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Mockingbird Canyon Van Buren El Sobrante $20,871,000 $20,871,000
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon El Cerrito Tuscany $3,168,000 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Tuscany Dos Lagos $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dos Lagos Leroy $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Leroy Dawson Canyon $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dawson Canyon I-15 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 Park Canyon $14,329,000 $14,329,000
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Washington Hermosa Harley John $12,787,000 $12,787,000
Northwest Unincorporated Wood Krameria Cajalco $12,537,000 $12,537,000
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
51
Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Pass Banning 8th Wilson I-10 $0 $0
Pass Banning Lincoln Sunset SR-243 $0 $0
Pass Banning Ramsey I-10 8th $0 $0
Pass Banning Ramsey 8th Highland Springs $0 $0
Pass Banning SR-243 I-10 Wesley $0 $0
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Home Sunset $30,502,000 $30,502,000
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Smith Creek bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Montgomery Creek bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Springs Highland Home $0 $0
Pass Banning Sunset Ramsey Lincoln $0 $0
Pass Banning Sunset I-10 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Pass Banning Wilson Highland Home 8th $0 $0
Pass Banning Wilson Highland Springs Highland Home $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 1st Viele Pennsylvania $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 1st Pennsylvania Highland Springs $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 6th I-10 Highland Springs $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Desert Lawn Champions Oak Valley (STC) $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Highland Springs Pennsylvania $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Pennsylvania Oak View $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) Oak View I-10 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th) I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $62,401,000
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC) UP Railroad Tukwet Canyon $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC) Tukwet Canyon I-10 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania 6th 1st $6,588,000 $6,588,000
Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania I-10 interchange $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Bryant County Line Avenue L $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Calimesa County Line I-10 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Calimesa I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000
Pass Calimesa County Line 7th Bryant $0 $0
Pass Calimesa County Line I-10 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Pass Calimesa Desert Lawn Palmer Champions $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Singleton Avenue L Condit $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Singleton Condit Roberts $12,972,000 $12,972,000
Pass Calimesa Singleton I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $0
Pass Calimesa Tukwet Canyon Roberts Rd Palmer $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Live Oak Canyon Oak Valley (STC) San Bernardino County $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon San Bernardino County UP Railroad $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon UP Railroad railroad crossing $52,780,000 $52,780,000
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Acacia Menlo $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Domenigoni Stetson $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson RR Crossing Acacia $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Stetson RR Crossing $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Menlo Esplanade $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida) Warren Cawston $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida) Columbia Ramona $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74/SR-79 (Florida) Cawston Columbia $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Domenigoni Chambers $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Chambers Stetson $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Florida Esplanade $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Stetson Florida $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Cawston State $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Warren Cawston $4,357,000 $4,357,000
San Jacinto Hemet Warren Esplanade Domenigoni $19,926,000 $19,926,000
San Jacinto Hemet Warren Salt Creek bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000
San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Mountain State $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade State Warren $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Sanderson Ramona Esplanade $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (North Ramona) State San Jacinto $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto) North Ramona Blvd 7th $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto) 7th SR-74 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto State Ramona Esplanade $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto State Gilman Springs Quandt Ranch $3,317,000 $3,317,000
San Jacinto San Jacinto State San Jacinto River bridge $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto State Quandt Ranch Ramona $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Warren Ramona Esplanade $13,469,000 $13,469,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Sanderson State $11,097,000 $11,097,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Massacre Canyon Wash bridge $1,392,000 $1,392,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester) SR-74 (Florida) Domenigoni $0 $0
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
52
Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued)
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Southwest Lake Elsinore Corydon Mission Grand $3,336,000 $3,336,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Diamond Mission I-15 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Franklin (integral to Railroad Canyon Interchange) I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Lincoln Toft $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Toft SR-74 (Riverside) $3,512,000 $3,512,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 Lincoln $39,817,000 $32,726,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $15,771,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake Temescal Wash bridge $2,506,000 $1,150,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Mission Railroad Canyon Bundy Canyon $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 Lake $7,850,000 $7,850,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols Temescal Wash bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Collier/Riverside) I-15 Lakeshore $24,303,000 $24,303,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Grand) Riverside SR-74 (Ortega) $9,733,000 $3,691,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Riverside) Lakeshore Grand $20,175,000 $20,175,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon I-15 Lake $7,411,000 $7,411,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon Temescal Wash bridge $3,480,000 $3,480,000
Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jefferson I-15 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta California Oaks I-15 Jackson $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jackson Clinton Keith $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Jackson Whitewood Ynez $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Palomar Nutmeg $1,562,000 $1,562,000
Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Nutmeg Murrieta Hot Springs $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Murrieta Hot Springs Cherry $30,634,000 $30,634,000
Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 Whitewood $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 interchange $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Los Alamos Jefferson I-215 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson I-215 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs I-215 Margarita $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Margarita SR-79 (Winchester) $4,057,000 $3,899,000
Southwest Murrieta Nutmeg Jefferson Clinton Keith $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Clinton Keith Los Alamos $2,708,000 $2,708,000
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Los Alamos Murrieta Hot Springs $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Murrieta Hot Springs Jackson $4,629,000 $4,629,000
Southwest Murrieta Ynez Jackson SR-79 (Winchester) $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Murrieta Hot Springs Calle Chapos $816,000 $816,000
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Calle Chapos La Serena $696,000 $696,000
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage La Serena Rancho California $904,000 $904,000
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Rancho California Pauba $846,000 $846,000
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Pauba SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) $725,000 $725,000
Southwest Temecula Jefferson Cherry Rancho California $2,285,000 $2,285,000
Southwest Temecula Margarita Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) $7,644,000 $7,644,000
Southwest Temecula Old Town Front Rancho California I-15/SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Via Gilberto $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy Via Gilberto Pechanga Pkwy $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Rancho California Jefferson Margarita $18,254,000 $18,181,000
Southwest Temecula Rancho California I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $0
Southwest Temecula Rancho California Margarita Butterfield Stage $0 $0
Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) I-15 Pechanga Pkwy $0 $0
Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy) Pechanga Pkwy Butterfield Stage $3,065,000 $3,065,000
Southwest Unincorporated Briggs Scott SR-79 (Winchester) $6,509,000 $6,509,000
Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Tucalota Creek bridge $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage (Pourroy) Auld Murrieta Hot Springs $23,076,000 $23,076,000
Southwest Unincorporated Grand Ortega Corydon $68,025,000 $68,025,000
Southwest Unincorporated Horsethief Canyon Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Indian Truck Trail Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Winchester) Pourroy $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Pala Pechanga San Diego County $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Pourroy SR-79 (Winchester) Auld $2,236,000 $2,236,000
Southwest Unincorporated Rancho California Butterfield Stage Glen Oaks $87,369,000 $87,369,000
Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Horsethief Canyon Wash bridge $3,340,000 $3,340,000
Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Truck Trail I-15 $15,739,000 $15,739,000
Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Wash bridge $1,462,000 $1,462,000
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Mission I-15 $9,704,000 $9,704,000
Southwest Wildomar Grand Corydon Wildomar Trail $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Mission Bundy Canyon Palomar $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Palomar Clinton Keith Washington $3,227,000 $3,227,000
Southwest Wildomar Palomar Mission Clinton Keith $13,493,000 $13,493,000
Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 Baxter $1,281,000 $1,281,000
Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $27,858,000
Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Baxter Palomar $11,316,000 $11,316,000
Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Palomar Grand $0 $0
Subtotal $2,508,329,000 $1,913,028,000
Totals Network $4,840,250,000 $3,874,735,000
Transit $217,870,000 $154,831,000
Administration $161,183,000 $161,183,000
MSHCP $64,606,000 $53,859,000
TOTAL $5,283,909,000 $4,244,608,000
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
53
Table 4.5 – TUMF Transit Cost Estimates
AREA PLAN
DIST
LEAD
AGENCY PROJECT NAME LOCATION UNITS (number/
length in miles) UNIT COST TOTAL MAXIMUM
TUMF SHARE
Central RTA Menifee Mobility Hub Menifee 1 $7,465,000 $7,465,000 $5,305,000
Northwest RTA Riverside Mobility Hub at Vine Street Riverside 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000
Central RTA Moreno Valley Mobility Hub(s) Moreno Valley 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000
Northwest RTA Jurupa Valley Mobility Hub(s) Jurupa Valley 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000
Pass RTA Pass Area Mobility Hub(s) Banning 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000
Southwest RTA Lake Elsinore / Canyon Lake Mobility
Hub(s) Lake Elsinore 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000
San Jacinto RTA Hemet Mobility Hub Hemet 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000
San Jacinto RTA San Jacinto Mobility Hub San Jacinto 1 $11,195,000 $11,195,000 $7,956,000
San Jacinto RTA MSJC Mobility Hub San Jacinto 1 $1,245,000 $1,245,000 $885,000
Regional RTA ZEB Technology Enhancements Various locations region wide 10 $100,000 $1,000,000 $711,000
Northwest RTA Regional Operations and Maintenance
Facility Riverside 1 $62,186,000 $62,186,000 $44,192,000
Regional RTA Annual Transit Enhancements Program Various locations region wide 290 $50,000 $14,500,000 $10,304,000
Northwest RTA HQTC Improvements UCR, Riverside to Perris 42 $75,000 $3,150,000 $2,239,000
Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Small Buses/Vans Various locations region wide 30 $160,000 $4,800,000 $3,411,000
Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Medium Buses Various locations region wide 20 $300,000 $6,000,000 $4,264,000
Regional RTA Vehicle Fleet Large Buses Various locations region wide 29 $1,271,000 $36,859,000 $26,194,000
Regional RTA COA Study Various locations region wide 2 $1,150,000 $2,300,000 $1,634,000
TOTAL $217,870,000 $154,831,000
4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation
To assess the effectiveness of the proposed TUMF Network improvements to mitigate the
cumulative regional impact of new development in Western Riverside County, the
proposed network improvements were added to the 2021 existing network in RivCoM
and the model was run with 2045 socioeconomic data to determine the relative
impacts on horizon year traffic conditions. To quantify the impacts of the TUMF Network
improvements, the various traffic measures of effectiveness described in Section 3.1 for
the 2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build scenarios were again calculated for the 2045 TUMF
Build scenario. The results for VMT, VHT, VHD, and total VMT experiencing
unacceptable level of service (LOS E) were then compared to the results presented in
Table 3.1 for the no-build conditions. The 2045 TUMF Build comparison results are
provided in Table 4.6. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix H.
As shown in Table 4.6, the 2045 peak period VMT on all arterial facilities experiencing
LOS of E or worse will decrease with the addition of the TUMF Network improvements
while the share of VMT on the TUMF arterial network experiencing LOS E or worse during
the peak periods will be reduced to 32% (which is still above the level experienced in
2018). It should be noted that the total VMT on the arterial system increases because of
freeway trips being diverted to the arterial system to benefit from the proposed TUMF
improvements.
Despite a greater share of the total peak period VMT in 2045, the arterial system can
more efficiently accommodate the increased demand with the proposed TUMF
improvements. Although peak period VMT on the TUMF improved arterial system
increases by approximately 6% in 2045 compared to the No Build condition, VHT on the
arterial system remains almost constant. Additionally, a benefit is observed on the
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
54
freeway system with VMT and VHT being reduced following TUMF Network
improvements. By completing TUMF improvements, the total VHD experienced by all
area motorists would be reduced during the peak period by over 7% from the levels
that would be experienced under the 2045 No-Build scenario. These results highlight the
effectiveness of the TUMF Program to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation
impacts of new development commensurate with the level of impact being created.
Table 4.6 – Regional Highway System Measures of Performance
(2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build Scenarios to 2045 TUMF Build Scenario)
Measure of Performance*
Peak Periods (Total)
2018 Existing 2045 No-Build 2045 Build
VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 23,284,724 29,897,254 30,160,328
VMT - FREEWAYS 13,514,522 15,490,284 15,418,548
VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 9,770,202 14,406,970 14,741,781
TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 6,216,985 8,597,200 9,096,417
VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 541,350 915,439 895,725
VHT - FREEWAYS 263,792 399,128 388,847
VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 277,558 516,311 506,878
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 174,455 320,869 321,062
VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 108,900 338,056 313,288
VHD - FREEWAYS 66,156 170,649 161,528
VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 42,745 167,407 151,760
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 33,249 124,863 114,451
VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 5,605,070 13,369,483 12,788,016
VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS 4,725,471 9,316,891 9,115,937
VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 879,599 4,052,592 3,672,079
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 765,782 3,184,133 2,929,288
% of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 12% 37% 32%
* Source: RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network as existing in
December 2021and RivCoM 2018 base network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network plus
future TUMF network projects.
NOTES:
Volume is adjusted by PCE factor
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system)
VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system)
VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system
based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time)
LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios).
LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
55
5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS
The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or
reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system
improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the
correlation between future development and the need for transportation system
improvements on the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of this
new development, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components
of the TUMF concept.
5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements
Previous sections of this report documented the projected population, household and
employment growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic
congestion and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system
improvements that will serve these future inter-community travel demands. The
following points coalesce this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates
to the need for improvements to the TUMF system.
Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing.
Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate
of growth into the foreseeable future. Current projections estimate the population is
projected to grow from a level of approximately 1.91 million in 2018 to a future level
of about 2.53 million in 2045, while employment is projected to grow from a level of
about 570,000 in 2018 to approximately 846,000 in 2045 (as shown in Table 2.3).
Continuing growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways.
Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase
dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.1). Without improvements to the
transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will
experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy
delays.
The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development
in Western Riverside County.
Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all
generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since longer-distance
trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial
roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways
will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western
Riverside County.
Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to alleviate the
future congestion caused by new development.
To maintain transportation service closer to current levels of efficiency, capacity
enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These
enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
56
roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, grade
separation of at-grade rail crossings, or the installation of new ITS to improve traffic
flows. The completion of improvements to the arterial roadway system would
enhance regional mobility and reduce the total peak period vehicles hours of travel
(VHT) by over 2%, reduce peak period vehicle hours of delay (VHD) by over 7%, and
reduce the share of traffic experiencing congestion in the peak periods by over 4%
(as shown in Table 4.6). The specific needs and timing of implementation will
depend on the location and rate of future development, so the specific
improvements to be funded by the TUMF and their priority of implementation will be
determined during future project programming activities as improvement needs
unfold and as TUMF funds become available.
Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee
program.
The criteria used to identify roads for the TUMF network (future number of lanes,
future traffic volume, future congestion level, and roadway function linking
communities and activity centers and serving public transportation) were selected
to ensure that these are the roadways that will serve inter-community travel and will
require future improvement to alleviate congestion.
Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide
adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to
automobile travel.
Since a portion of the population does not own an automobile and depends on
public transportation for mobility, public transportation infrastructure and service will
need to be enhanced and expanded to ensure continued mobility for this segment
of the population. In addition, improvements to the public transportation system will
be required to ensure that transit service can function as a viable option for future
new Western Riverside County residents and employees who choose to avoid
congestion by using public transportation.
For the reasons cited above, it can be readily concluded that there is a rational nexus
between the future need for transportation improvements on the TUMF system and the
future development upon which the proposed TUMF would be levied. The following
sections evaluate the rational nexus in relation to the system components and the types
of uses upon which the fee is assessed.
5.2 Application of Fee to System Components
As noted in Section 3.2, the TUMF concept includes splitting the fee revenues between
the backbone system of arterials, the secondary system of arterials, and the public
transportation system. This section evaluates the travel demands to determine the
rational nexus between the future travel demands and the use of the fee to fund
improvements to the future system components.
The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is
related to the proportion of highway vehicle trips that are relatively local (between
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
57
adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but
still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the
respective networks, the future combined AM and PM peak period travel forecast
estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones to show the percentage
of trips that remain within each zone in relation to the volume that travels to the other
zones. This analysis was completed using the Year 2045 No-Build scenario trip tables
from RivCoM.
The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the TAZs in
the model and the five WRCOG TUMF zones (i.e. Northwest, Southwest, Central,
Hemet/San Jacinto and Pass). The TAZs were then compressed into six districts (the five
WRCOG zones and one for the rest of the SCAG region).
Table 5.1 shows the estimated peak period vehicle trips within and between each of
the zones. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of peak period vehicle trips within and
between the respective zones. Appendix I includes the detailed RivCoM outputs used
to develop the regional trip distribution profile shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2.
Table 5.1 - 2045 No-Build Peak Period Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone
To
From Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Central 417,608 23,474 89,780 6,301 55,101 57,558 649,822
Hemet/San Jacinto 29,401 209,005 8,647 8,432 16,081 18,078 289,645
Northwest 58,578 2,684 743,234 2,687 11,032 196,041 1,014,257
Pass 8,068 7,585 6,114 110,385 908 32,334 165,395
Southwest 55,812 16,232 32,852 1,976 667,255 62,713 836,839
Outside WRCOG 33,907 7,574 192,712 24,490 33,867 292,550
TOTAL 603,375 266,554 1,073,340 154,271 784,244 366,724 3,248,507
Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No-Build scenario
Table 5.2 – 2045 No-Build Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone
To
From Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Central 64.3% 3.6% 13.8% 1.0% 8.5% 8.9% 100%
Hemet/San Jacinto 10.2% 72.2% 3.0% 2.9% 5.6% 6.2% 100%
Northwest 5.8% 0.3% 73.3% 0.3% 1.1% 19.3% 100%
Pass 4.9% 4.6% 3.7% 66.7% 0.5% 19.5% 100%
Southwest 6.7% 1.9% 3.9% 0.2% 79.7% 7.5% 100%
Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No-Build scenario
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
58
Table 5.3 summarizes the calculation of the split between the backbone and
secondary highway networks as derived from the peak period trip values provided in
Table 5.1. Peak period vehicle trips to and from areas outside Western Riverside County
were subtracted from the calculation, on the presumption that most of their inter-
regional travel would occur on the freeway system. Peak period trips between zones
(regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily
served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Peak
period trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the
secondary network in proportion to their lane-miles, since roadways on both networks
serve intra-zonal trips. The backbone network includes approximately 41.1% of the
lane-miles on the future TUMF system, and the secondary network includes
approximately 58.9% of the lane-miles.
The backbone network is therefore assigned all the inter-zonal peak period trips plus
41.1% of the intra-zonal peak period trips. The secondary network is assigned 58.9% of
the intra-zonal peak period trips and none of the inter-zonal peak period trips. The
overall result is that 51.1% of the regional travel is assigned to the backbone network
and 48.9% is assigned to the secondary network.
Table 5.3 - Backbone-Secondary Network Share Calculation
Calculation Value Description Input Values Backbone
Value
Backbone
Share
Secondary
Value
Secondary
Share
Total Western Riverside County
Peak Period Vehicle Trips 3,248,507
Less Internal/External Peak Period
Vehicle Trips -659,273
Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips
Internal to Western Riverside
County
2,589,234
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between
TUMF Zones 441,747
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within
TUMF Zones 2,147,487
TUMF Future Network Lane-Miles 3,029.9 1,243.9 41.1% 1,786.0 58.9%
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between
TUMF Zones 441,747 441,747 100.0% 0 0.0%
Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within
TUMF Zones (as share of intra-
zonal trips)
2,147,487 882,332 41.1% 1,265,155 58.9%
Total Peak Period Vehicle Trips
Assigned 2,589,234 1,324,079 51.1% 1,265,155 48.9%
Based on RivCoM Year 2045 No-Build scenario; TUMF Nexus Study Exhibit H-1
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
59
5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non-Residential Developments
In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts
associated with new residential development and new non-residential development,
the growth in daily VMT between the 2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build Scenarios from
RivCoM were aggregated by trip purpose. RivCoM produces person trips (irrespective
of mode choice) on the basis of five trip purposes: home-based-work (HBW), home-
based-other (HBO), home-based-school (HBS), non-home-based (NHB), and home-
based-university (HBU).
NCHRP Report #187 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and
Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978) details
operational travel estimation techniques that are universally used for the travel demand
modeling. Chapter 2 of this report, which details trip generation estimation, states that
"HBW (Home Based Work) and HBNW (Home Based Non-Work) trips are generated at
the households, whereas the NHB (Non-Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere." In
accordance with NCHRP Report #187, growth in daily VMT was aggregated into home-
based growth in daily VMT (combining the four home-based purposes: HBW, HBO, HBSC
and HBU) and non-home-based growth in daily VMT. The home-based growth in daily
VMT represents 77.7% of the total future growth in daily VMT and the non-home-based
growth in daily VMT represent 22.3% of the total future growth in daily VMT, as shown in
Table 5.4. Appendix J includes the RivCoM outputs used to develop the trip purpose
summary in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4 - Daily VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2018 - 2045)
VEHICLE TRIP PURPOSE 2018 EXISTING
DAILY VMT
2045 NO-BUILD
DAILY VMT
DAILY VMT
GROWTH
DAILY VMT
GROWTH
SHARE
Home-Based-Work 81,121,525 98,818,811 17,697,286 31.8%
Home-Based-Other 114,840,696 138,710,519 23,869,822 42.9%
Home-Based-School (K-12) 8,592,941 9,230,272 637,331 1.1%
Non-Home-Based 61,534,566 73,907,099 12,372,533 22.3%
Home-Based-University 5,377,197 6,400,662 1,023,465 1.8%
TOTAL 271,466,925 327,067,363 55,600,437 100.00%
Home-Based Trips
(Residential Uses) 43,227,904 77.7%
Non-Home-Based Trips
(Non-Residential Uses) 12,372,533 22.3%
Based on RivCoM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023 and RivCoM Year 2045 No Build Scenario, November
2023
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
60
6.0 FAIR-SHARE FEE CALCULATION
The fee amounts, by type of development, that are justified to mitigate the cumulative
regional impacts of new development on transportation facilities in Western Riverside
County are quantified in this section. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is
$5.28 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals
$382.9 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development
represent $646.9 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system
improvement needs is $4.24 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the
mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new
development in the WRCOG region and will be captured through the TUMF Program.
By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new
residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system
users are assigned their “fair share” of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of
additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system.
Of the $4.24 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 77.7% ($3.30 billion) will be
assigned to future new residential development and 22.3% ($946.5 million) will be
assigned to future new non-residential development.
6.1 Residential Fees
The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new residential
development through the TUMF is $3.30 billion. Since this future transportation system
improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through
the Year 2045, the fee will be spread between the residential developments projected
to be constructed between 2018 and 2045. The projected residential growth from year
2018 to 2045 is 257,826 households (or dwelling units) as is indicated in Table 2.3.
Different household types generate different numbers of trips. To reflect the difference
in trip generation between lower density “single-family” dwelling units and higher
density “multi-family” dwelling units, the TUMF was weighted based on the respective
trip generation rates of these different dwelling unit types. For the purposes of the TUMF
Program, single family dwelling units are those housing units with a density of less than 8
units per acre while multi-family units are those with a density of 8 or more units per
acre. According to the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS forecasts included in Table 2.3 and
Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to
constitute 65.0% of the growth in residential dwelling units in the region between 2018
and 2045.
Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual,
11th Edition (2021) show that, on average, single-family dwelling units generate 0.99
vehicle trips per dwelling unit per hour in the PM peak hour, whereas apartments,
condominiums and townhouses (considered to be representative of higher density
multi-family dwelling units) generate a median of 0.50 vehicle trips per unit per hour in
the PM peak hour. The growth in dwelling units for single-family and multi-family,
respectively, were multiplied by the corresponding trip generation rates to determine
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
61
the weighted proportion of the change in trips attributable to each use type as the
basis for determining the per unit fee required to levy the necessary $3.20 billion to
mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new residential
development. Table 6.1 summarizes the calculation of the fee for single-family and
multi-family dwelling units. Appendix K includes worksheets detailing the calculation of
the residential (and non-residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County.
Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share
Residential Sector
2018
Dwelling
Units
2045
Dwelling
Units
Dwelling
Unit
Change
Trip
Generation
Rate
Trip Change
Percentage
of Trip
Change
Fee/DU
Single-Family 397,407 564,898 167,491 0.99 165,816 78.6% $15,476
Multi-Family 157,166 247,501 90,335 0.50 45,168 21.4% $7,816
Total 554,573 812,399 257,826 210,984 100.0%
Household data based on SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS;
Trip Generation based on ITE Trip Generation (2021).
Consistent with the socio-economic forecasts developed by SCAG and the trip
generation basis to assess the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new
development, the residential fee calculation for TUMF reflects a uniform fee per
dwelling unit for two categories as described previously: single-family residential and
multi-family residential. On September 28, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsome
signed Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602) approving several changes to the Mitigation Fee Act,
including the additional of §66016.5 to the California Government Code (CGC). CGC
§66016.5(a)(5)(A) states “A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee
imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of
proposed units of the development.…” unless certain findings are made. These findings
include:
“(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not appropriate metric to calculate
fees imposed on housing development project.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a
reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the
development.
(iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or
otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate
fees.”
To address these provisions of AB 602, WRCOG analyzed the trip generation
characteristics of single-family and multi-family residential dwelling units of various sizes
to determine whether the TUMF should be imposed based on the square footage of the
respective housing type. The findings of the analyses for single-family and multi-family,
respectively, were summarized in technical memoranda that are included in Appendix
K. Based on the findings of the analyses, WRCOG has determined that the fee for
single-family residential units should be adjusted in four tiers to correlate to the trip
generation characteristics associated with various ranges of single-family housing sizes
to demonstrate compliance with AB 602. The tiers reflecting the adjustments to the
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
62
standard single-family residential fee per dwelling unit (as calculated in Table 6.1) for
differing ranges of single-family dwelling unit sizes are summarized in Table 6.2.
Adjustments to the standard uniform fair-share single-family residential fee to account
for variations in trip generation rates based on the size of the units will be made at the
time of determining the fee obligation consistent with the process outlined further in the
WRCOG TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook.
Table 6.2 – Single-Family Residential Fee Adjustments by Unit Size
Adjustment Tier Housing Unit Size Range (in square feet) Base Fee Adjustment
Tier 1 Less than or equal to 1,800 80%
Tier 2 1,801 to 2,300 90%
Tier 3 2,301 to 2,700 100%
Tier 4 More than 2,700 125%
For multi-family residential units, WRCOG determined that the fee can be imposed on
all multi-family units uniformly consistent with the conclusions of the analysis of multi-
family trip generation rates by unit size, which demonstrated little variation in trip
generation rates across the range of multi-family residential unit sizes. Therefore, the
multi-family residential fee, as calculated in Table 6.2, can be applied uniformly to all
multi-family residential units under the TUMF program.
6.2 Non-Residential Fees
The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new non-residential
development through the TUMF is $946.5 million. Estimates of employment by sector
were obtained from the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS socioeconomic data included in Table 2.3
and Appendix B. From the 2045 employment forecast, the amount of employee
growth in each sector was calculated. The employment figures were then translated
into square footage of new development using typical ratios of square feet per
employee derived from four sources including: Cordoba Corporation/Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas (PBQD), Land Use Density Conversion Factors For Long
Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20, 1990; Orange
County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange County Subarea Model Guidelines
Manual, June 2001; SCAG, Employment Density Study, October 31, 2001; and the
County of Riverside, General Plan, as amended December 15, 2015. Worksheets
showing the development of the TUMF employee conversion factors and the
application of the conversion factors to calculate the square footage of future new
non-residential development in Western Riverside County are included in Appendix L.
To account for the differences in trip generation between various types of non-
residential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation
rate for each sector. Typical trip generation rates per employee were obtained from
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation – 11 th Edition (2021), and
were weighted based on a calculated value of trips per employee as derived from the
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
63
employee conversion factors and ITE typical trip generation rates per square foot of
development, before being assigned to the non-residential categories as follows:
Industrial – 0.6 PM peak hour trips per employee, Retail – 1.8 PM peak hour trips per
employee, Service – 1.2 PM peak hour trips per employee, and Government/Public –
2.1 PM peak hour trips per employee12. These rates were applied to the employment
growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new trip-
making, and the $946.5 million was then allocated among the non-residential
categories based on the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate non-
residential fee share by sector was then divided by the estimated square footage of
future new development to obtain the rate per square foot for each type of use. The
calculation of the non-residential fee by sector is shown in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3 - Fee Calculation for Non-Residential Share
Non-Residential Sector Employment
Change
Trip
Generation
Rate per
Employee
Trip Change
Percentage
of Trip
Change
Change in
Square Feet of
Gross Floor
Area
Fee/SF
Industrial 76,581 0.6 45,949 15.1% 61,489,565 $2.33
Retail 13,115 1.8 23,607 7.8% 6,557,500 $11.21
Service 174,255 1.2 209,106 68.8% 66,735,957 $9.76
Government/Public 12,071 2.1 25,349 8.3% 3,420,665 $23.07
Total 276,022 304,011 100.0% 138,203,688
Employment Change data based on SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS; Trip Generation based on ITE (2021); Change in Square Feet
conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990), OCTA (2001), SCAG (2001) and County of Riverside (2015).
12 The median trip generation rate for ‘Retail’ and ‘Service’ was reduced to reflect the influence of pass-by trips using
the weekday PM peak median pass-by trip rate for select uses as derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th
Edition) (September 2021).
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
64
7.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, there is reasonable relationship
between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development
projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation
impacts using funds levied through the ongoing TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this
reasonable relationship include:
Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing because of future new
development.
Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways.
The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative
regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County.
Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the
cumulative regional impacts of new development.
Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee
program.
Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide
adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to
automobile travel.
The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional “fair share” of the
improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing
development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources.
Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to
mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in Western
Riverside County in rough proportionality to the cumulative impacts of future residential
and non-residential development in the region. The respective fee allocable to future
new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is
summarized for differing use types in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County
Land Use Type Units Development
Change Fee Per Unit Total Revenue
($ million)
Single Family Residential DU 167,491 $15,476 $2,592.0
Multi Family Residential DU 90,335 $7,816 $706.1
Industrial SF GFA 61,489,565 $2.33 $143.1
Retail SF GFA 6,557,500 $11.21 $73.5
Service SF GFA 66,735,957 $9.76 $651.1
Government/Public SF GFA 3,420,665 $23.07 $78.9
MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $4,244.6
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
65
8.0 APPENDICES
The following Appendices incorporate the extent of materials used to support the
development of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study and, where appropriate, specifically
the 2024 Update. The respective Appendices also incorporate an explanation of the
methodology and assumptions used to develop the various elements of the Nexus
Study.
These Appendices represent a compilation of materials derived from a variety of
technical resources. Each of the following Appendices relate to the development of a
specific element of the Nexus Study. These Appendices are as follows:
Appendix A - List of WRCOG Committees
Appendix B - Western Riverside County Population and Employment Growth 2018 –
2045
Appendix C - Western Riverside County Traffic Growth 2018 – 2045
Appendix D - Western Riverside County Transit System Ridership 2018 – 2045
Appendix E - Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials
Performance Measures
Appendix F - TUMF Network Cost Assumptions
Appendix G - TUMF 2024 Program Update Disposition of Network Change Requests
Appendix H - TUMF Network Cost Estimate and Evaluation
Appendix I - Western Riverside County Regional Trip Distribution
Appendix J - Western Riverside County Regional Trip Purpose
Appendix K - Residential Fee Calculation
Appendix L - Non-Residential Fee Calculation
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
A-1
Appendix A - List of WRCOG Committees
WRCOG Executive Committee
Sheri Flynn City of Banning
Mike Lara City of Beaumont
Wendy Hewitt City of Calimesa
Mark Terry City of Canyon Lake
Jacque Casillas (2nd Vice-Chair) City of Corona
Christian Dinco City of Eastvale
Jackie Peterson City of Hemet
Chris Barajas (Past Chair) City of Jurupa Valley
Brian Tisdale City of Lake Elsinore
Bob Karwin City of Menifee
Elena Baca-Santa Cruz City of Moreno Valley
Lisa DeForest City of Murrieta
Kevin Bash City of Norco
Rita Rogers (Chair) City of Perris
Chuck Conder City of Riverside
Crystal Ruiz City of San Jacinto
James Stewart City of Temecula
Joseph Morabito City of Wildomar
Kevin Jeffries County of Riverside Dist. 1
Karen Spiegel County of Riverside Dist. 2
Chuck Washington County of Riverside Dist. 3
Yxstian Gutierrez County of Riverside Dist. 5
Phil Paule Eastern Municipal Water District
Dr. Edwin Gomez Riverside County Superintendent of
Schools (ex-officio)
Brenda Dennstedt (Vice-Chair) Western Water
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
A-2
WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee
Doug Schulze City of Banning
Elizabeth Gibbs City of Beaumont
Will Kolbow City of Calimesa
Aaron Brown City of Canyon Lake
Brett Channing City of Corona
Mark Orme City of Eastvale
Mark Prestwich City of Hemet
Rod Butler (Past Chair) City of Jurupa Valley
Jason Simpson City of Lake Elsinore
Armando Villa City of Menifee
Mike Lee City of Moreno Valley
Kim Summers City of Murrieta
Lori Sassoon City of Norco
Clara Miramontes (Chair) City of Perris
Mike Futrell City of Riverside
Rob Johnson City of San Jacinto
Aaron Adams City of Temecula
Dan York City of Wildomar
Jeff Van Wagenen County of Riverside
Joe Mouawad Eastern Municipal Water District
Grace Martin March Joint Power Authority
Matt Snellings Riverside County Office of Education
Craig Miller Western Water
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
A-3
WRCOG Planning Directors’ Committee
no new appointment made (as of 07/24/24) City of Banning
Carole Kendrick City of Beaumont
Kelly Lucia City of Calimesa
Jim Morrisey City of Canyon Lake
Joanne Coletta City of Corona
David Murray City of Eastvale
Monique Alaniz-Flejter City of Hemet
Joe Perez (Chair) City of Jurupa Valley
Damaris Abraham City of Lake Elsinore
Cheryl Kitzerow City of Menifee
Sean Kelleher (2nd Vice-Chair) City of Moreno Valley
David Chantarangsu City of Murrieta
Alma Robles City of Norco
Kenneth Phung (Vice-Chair) City of Perris
Judy Eguez City of Riverside
Travis Randel City of San Jacinto
Matt Peters City of Temecula
Matthew Bassi City of Wildomar
John Hildebrand County of Riverside
Jeffrey Smith March Joint Powers Authority
Jennifer Nguyen Riverside Transit Agency
Ryan Shaw Western Water
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
A-4
WRCOG Public Works Committee
Art Vela City of Banning
Robert Vestal City of Beaumont
Michael Thornton City of Calimesa
Stuart McKibben City of Canyon Lake
Savat Khamphou (Vice-Chair) City of Corona
Jimmy Chung City of Eastvale
Noah Rau City of Hemet
Paul Toor (Chair) City of Jurupa Valley
Remon Habib City of Lake Elsinore
Nick Fidler City of Menifee
Melissa Walker City of Moreno Valley
Bob Moehling City of Murrieta
Sam Nelson City of Norco
John Pourkazemi City of Perris
Gil Hernandez City of Riverside
Stuart McKibbin (Vice-Chair) City of San Jacinto
Patrick Thomas City of Temecula
Jason Farag City of Wildomar
Patricia Romo County of Riverside
Lauren Sotelo March Joint Powers Authority
Jillian Guizado Riverside County Transportation Commission
Mauricio Alvarez Riverside Transit Agency
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
A-5
WRCOG Finance Directors’ Committee
Lincoln Bogard City of Banning
Jennifer Ustation City of Beaumont
Celeste Reid City of Calimesa
Terry Shea City of Canyon Lake
Kim Sitton City of Corona
Amanda Wells City of Eastvale
vacant City of Hemet
June Overholt City of Jurupa Valley
Shannon Buckley City of Lake Elsinore
Travis Hickey City of Menifee
Launa Jimenez City of Moreno Valley
Javier Carcamo (Past Chair) City of Murrieta
Lisette Free City of Norco
Ernie Reyna (Chair) City of Perris
Kristie Thomas City of Riverside
Erika Gomez (2nd Vice-Chair) City of San Jacinto
Jennifer Hennessy City of Temecula
Adam Jantz City of Wildomar
Vacant County of Riverside
John Adams Eastern Municipal Water District
Grace Martin March Joint Power Authority
Dr. Ruth Perez Riverside County Office of Education
Kevin Mascaro Western Water
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9. 2024
B-1
Appendix B - Western Riverside County Population and Employment Growth 2008 – 2035
Although a variety of alternate demographic information is available for the purpose of
quantifying population and household growth in Western Riverside County, it was
determined that the data developed by SCAG to support the 2020 RTP/SCS
represented the most comprehensive source of socioeconomic data (SED) for the six-
county SCAG region that includes Riverside County. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED
information is disaggregated to the level of traffic analysis zones (TAZ) that comprise
inputs to RivCoM. These SED data by TAZ were extracted from RivCoM (specifically the
TAZ_Data.CSV file located in the PopSyn output folder) and aggregated to correspond
with the TUMF zones to support this update of the TUMF Nexus. The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
SED data retrieved from RivCoM and used as the basis for the Nexus Update is
summarized in this Appendix.
The SCAG employment data for 2018 and 2045 was provided for thirteen employment
sectors consistent with the California Employment Development Department (EDD)
Major Groups including: Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction;
Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities;
Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health
Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service; and Government. For the purposes of
the Nexus Study, the SCAG Employment Categories were aggregated to Industrial
(Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale
Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities), Retail (Retail Trade), Service
(Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and
Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service) and Government/Public Sector
(Government). These four aggregated sector types were used as the basis for
calculating the fee as described in Section 6.2. This Appendix includes tables detailing
the SCAG RTP/SCS SED Employment Categories and corresponding North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each non-
residential sector type.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT B-1
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2018) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Base Year
SED Type/Zone Central Northwest Pass San Jacinto Southwest Total
Total Population 408,260 777,900 98,688 187,677 432,915 1,905,440
Single-Family 83,142 152,897 24,937 38,888 97,543 397,407
Multi-Family 26,889 63,591 8,661 26,055 31,970 157,166
Total Households 110,031 216,488 33,598 64,943 129,513 554,573
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining 799 3,431 559 1,625 2,080 8,494
Construction 6,245 31,914 1,807 2,067 13,290 55,323
Manufacturing 4,172 25,866 1,101 925 8,902 40,966
Wholesale Trade 8,428 9,269 268 546 6,490 25,001
Retail Trade 13,346 32,061 5,472 4,564 18,371 73,814
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 7,349 22,686 1,132 2,132 6,251 39,550
Information 425 2,073 496 177 863 4,034
Financial Activities 1,887 8,632 586 1,003 5,414 17,522
Professional and Business Service 7,834 32,973 3,434 1,630 13,532 59,403
Education and Health Service 20,423 76,884 6,092 13,659 29,192 146,250
Leisure and Hospitality 8,391 21,990 7,207 3,726 18,270 59,584
Other Service 2,834 10,603 1,244 1,891 5,338 21,910
Government 2,579 11,727 871 761 2,631 18,569
TUMF Industrial 26,993 93,166 4,867 7,295 37,013 169,334
TUMF Retail 13,346 32,061 5,472 4,564 18,371 73,814
TUMF Service 41,794 153,155 19,059 22,086 72,609 308,703
TUMF Government/Public Sector 2,579 11,727 871 761 2,631 18,569
Total Employment 84,712 290,109 30,269 34,706 130,624 570,420
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Population
Households
Employment
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT B-2
Western Riverside County Population, Households & Employment (2045) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Horizon Year
SED Type/Zone Central Northwest Pass San Jacinto Southwest Total
Total Population 594,678 925,228 158,040 289,439 566,491 2,533,876
Single-Family 133,507 181,827 43,988 70,713 134,863 564,898
Multi-Family 53,555 79,359 14,362 43,654 56,571 247,501
Total Households 187,062 261,186 58,350 114,367 191,434 812,399
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining 712 2,212 527 1,218 2,001 6,670
Construction 18,304 48,533 3,186 5,861 20,236 96,120
Manufacturing 6,836 24,624 1,393 1,149 10,335 44,337
Wholesale Trade 6,150 9,048 324 559 6,529 22,610
Retail Trade 16,310 33,656 7,136 6,338 23,489 86,929
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 18,227 38,043 2,705 4,771 12,432 76,178
Information 642 2,166 476 191 1,116 4,591
Financial Activities 2,906 9,889 1,229 1,536 6,665 22,225
Professional and Business Service 14,214 41,712 6,016 4,518 21,058 87,518
Education and Health Service 52,764 111,454 13,803 25,739 51,118 254,878
Leisure and Hospitality 13,197 27,739 10,540 8,424 24,641 84,541
Other Service 5,148 13,062 1,532 2,838 6,625 29,205
Government 6,229 18,222 1,176 1,471 3,542 30,640
TUMF Industrial 50,229 122,460 8,135 13,558 51,533 245,915
TUMF Retail 16,310 33,656 7,136 6,338 23,489 86,929
TUMF Service 88,871 206,022 33,596 43,246 111,223 482,958
TUMF Government/Public Sector 6,229 18,222 1,176 1,471 3,542 30,640
Total Employment 161,639 380,360 50,043 64,613 189,787 846,442
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Population
Households
Employment
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT B-3
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2018 to 2045 Change) - SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
SED Type/Zone Central Northwest Pass San Jacinto Southwest Total
Total Population 186,418 147,328 59,352 101,762 133,576 628,436
Single-Family 50,365 28,930 19,051 31,825 37,320 167,491
Multi-Family 26,666 15,768 5,701 17,599 24,601 90,335
Total Households 77,031 44,698 24,752 49,424 61,921 257,826
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining -87 -1,219 -32 -407 -79 -1,824
Construction 12,059 16,619 1,379 3,794 6,946 40,797
Manufacturing 2,664 -1,242 292 224 1,433 3,371
Wholesale Trade -2,278 -221 56 13 39 -2,391
Retail Trade 2,964 1,595 1,664 1,774 5,118 13,115
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities 10,878 15,357 1,573 2,639 6,181 36,628
Information 217 93 -20 14 253 557
Financial Activities 1,019 1,257 643 533 1,251 4,703
Professional and Business Service 6,380 8,739 2,582 2,888 7,526 28,115
Education and Health Service 32,341 34,570 7,711 12,080 21,926 108,628
Leisure and Hospitality 4,806 5,749 3,333 4,698 6,371 24,957
Other Service 2,314 2,459 288 947 1,287 7,295
Government 3,650 6,495 305 710 911 12,071
TUMF Industrial 23,236 29,294 3,268 6,263 14,520 76,581
TUMF Retail 2,964 1,595 1,664 1,774 5,118 13,115
TUMF Service 47,077 52,867 14,537 21,160 38,614 174,255
TUMF Government/Public Sector 3,650 6,495 305 710 911 12,071
Total Employment 76,927 90,251 19,774 29,907 59,163 276,022
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Population
Households
Employment
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Exhibit B-4a - TUMF 2024 Nexus Update
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2018-2045)
SED Type/Zone 2018 2045 Change Percent
Total Population 1,905,440 2,533,876 628,436 33%
Total Households 554,573 812,399 257,826 46%
Single-Family 397,407 564,898 167,491 42%
Multi-Family 157,166 247,501 90,335 57%
Total Employment 570,420 846,442 276,022 48%
TUMF Industrial 169,334 245,915 76,581 45%
TUMF Retail 73,814 86,929 13,115 18%
TUMF Service 308,703 482,958 174,255 56%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 18,569 30,640 12,071 65%
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Exhibit B-4b - TUMF 2016 Nexus Update
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (2012-2040)
SED Type/Zone 2012 2040 Change Percent
Total Population 1,773,935 2,429,633 655,698 37%
Total Households 525,149 775,231 250,082 48%
Single-Family 366,588 539,631 173,043 47%
Multi-Family 158,561 235,600 77,039 49%
Total Employment 460,787 861,455 400,668 87%
TUMF Industrial 120,736 201,328 80,592 67%
TUMF Retail 65,888 101,729 35,841 54%
TUMF Service 253,372 528,092 274,720 108%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 20,791 30,306 9,515 46%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Exhibit B-4c - TUMF 2016 Nexus Update to 2024 Nexus Update Comparison
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment (Existing to Future Change)
SED Type/Zone 2016 Update
(2012-2040)
2024 Update
(2018-2045)Difference Percent
Total Population 655,698 628,436 -27,262 -4%
Total Households 250,082 257,826 7,744 3%
Single-Family 173,043 167,491 -5,552 -3%
Multi-Family 77,039 90,335 13,296 17%
Total Employment 400,668 276,022 -124,646 -31%
TUMF Industrial 80,592 76,581 -4,011 -5%
TUMF Retail 35,841 13,115 -22,726 -63%
TUMF Service 274,720 174,255 -100,465 -37%
TUMF Government/Public Sector 9,515 12,071 2,556 27%
Source: SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
B-7
EXHIBIT B-4d
Western Riverside County Population, Households and Employment Change (2012 to 2040 and 2018 to 2045)
TUMF 2016 Nexus Update Comparison to TUMF 2024 Nexus Update
Sources:
Year 2012 to Year 2040 Growth (2016 Nexus Update): SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; WSP, April 2016
Year 2018 to Year 2045 Growth (2024 Nexus Update): SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
B-8
EXHIBIT B-4e
Difference in Population, Households and Employment Growth in Western Riverside County
TUMF 2016 Nexus Update Comparison to TUMF 2024 Nexus Update
Source:
Year 2012 to Year 2040 Growth (2016 Nexus Update): SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS; WSP, April 2016
Year 2018 to Year 2045 Growth (2024 Nexus Update): SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT B-5a
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence Summary
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title
Industrial
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
111 Crop Production
112 Animal Production and Aquaculture
113 Forestry and Logging
114 Fishing, Hunting and Trapping
115 Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry
21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
211 Oil and Gas Extraction
212 Mining (except Oil and Gas)
213 Support Activities for Mining
Construction
23 Construction
236 Construction of Buildings
237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
238 Specialty Trade Contractors
Manufacturing
31-33 Manufacturing
311 Food Manufacturing
312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing
313 Textile Mills
314 Textile Product Mills
315 Apparel Manufacturing
316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing
321 Wood Product Manufacturing
322 Paper Manufacturing
323 Printing and Related Support Activities
324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
325 Chemical Manufacturing
326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
331 Primary Metal Manufacturing
332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
333 Machinery Manufacturing
334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
42 Wholesale Trade
423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods
424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods
425 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities
22 Utilities
221 Utilities
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing
481 Air Transportation
482 Rail Transportation
483 Water Transportation
484 Truck Transportation
485 Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
486 Pipeline Transportation
487 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation
488 Support Activities for Transportation
491 Postal Service
492 Couriers and Messengers
493 Warehousing and Storage
Retail
Retail Trade
44-45 Retail Trade
441 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
444 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers
445 Food and Beverage Retailers
449 Furniture, Home Furnishings, Electronics, and Appliance Retailers
455 General Merchandise Retailers
456 Health and Personal Care Retailers
457 Gasoline Stations and Fuel Dealers
458 Clothing, Clothing Accessories, Shoe, and Jewelry Retailers
459 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument, Book, and Miscellaneous Retailers
TUMF Category
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence Summary
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title
TUMF Category
Service
Information
51 Information
512 Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries
513 Publishing Industries
516 Broadcasting and Content Providers
517 Telecommunications
518 Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services
519 Web Search Portals, Libraries, Archives, and Other Information Services
Financial Activities
52 Finance and Insurance
521 Monetary Authorities-Central Bank
522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities
523 Securities, Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities
524 Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
525 Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
531 Real Estate
532 Rental and Leasing Services
533 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works)
Professional and Business Services
54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
55 Management of Companies and Enterprises
551 Management of Companies and Enterprises
56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services
561 Administrative and Support Services
562 Waste Management and Remediation Services
Education and Health Services
61 Educational Services
611 Educational Services
62 Health Care and Social Assistance
621 Ambulatory Health Care Services
622 Hospitals
623 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities
624 Social Assistance
Leisure and Hospitality
71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
711 Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and Related Industries
712 Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
713 Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation Industries
72 Accommodation and Food Services
721 Accommodation
722 Food Services and Drinking Places
Other Service
81 Other Services (except Public Administration)
811 Repair and Maintenance
812 Personal and Laundry Services
813 Religious, Grantmaking, Civic, Professional, and Similar Organizations
814 Private Households
Government/Public Sector
Government
92 Public Administration
921 Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support
922 Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
923 Administration of Human Resource Programs
924 Administration of Environmental Quality Programs
925 Administration of Housing Programs, Urban Planning, and Community Development
926 Administration of Economic Programs
927 Space Research and Technology
928 National Security and International Affairs
Source:SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
California Employment Development Department (EDD)
US Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), 2022
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT B-5b
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title
Industrial
Farming, Natural Resources and Mining
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
111 Crop Production
111110 Soybean Farming
111120 Oilseed (except Soybean) Farming
111130 Dry Pea and Bean Farming
111140 Wheat Farming
111150 Corn Farming
111160 Rice Farming
111191 Oilseed and Grain Combination Farming
111199 All Other Grain Farming
111211 Potato Farming
111219 Other Vegetable (except Potato) and Melon Farming
111310 Orange Groves
111320 Citrus (except Orange) Groves
111331 Apple Orchards
111332 Grape Vineyards
111333 Strawberry Farming
111334 Berry (except Strawberry) Farming
111335 Tree Nut Farming
111336 Fruit and Tree Nut Combination Farming
111339 Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming
111411 Mushroom Production
111419 Other Food Crops Grown Under Cover
111421 Nursery and Tree Production
111422 Floriculture Production
111910 Tobacco Farming
111920 Cotton Farming
111930 Sugarcane Farming
111940 Hay Farming
111991 Sugar Beet Farming
111992 Peanut Farming
111998 All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farming
112 Animal Production and Aquaculture
112111 Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming
112112 Cattle Feedlots
112120 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production
112130 Dual-Purpose Cattle Ranching and Farming
112210 Hog and Pig Farming
112310 Chicken Egg Production
112320 Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken Production
112330 Turkey Production
112340 Poultry Hatcheries
112390 Other Poultry Production
112410 Sheep Farming
112420 Goat Farming
112511 Finfish Farming and Fish Hatcheries
112512 Shellfish Farming
112519 Other Aquaculture
112910 Apiculture
112920 Horses and Other Equine Production
112930 Fur-Bearing Animal and Rabbit Production
112990 All Other Animal Production
113 Forestry and Logging
113110 Timber Tract Operations
113210 Forest Nurseries and Gathering of Forest Products
113310 Logging
114 Fishing, Hunting and Trapping
114111 Finfish Fishing
114112 Shellfish Fishing
114119 Other Marine Fishing
114210 Hunting and Trapping
115 Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry
115111 Cotton Ginning
115112 Soil Preparation, Planting, and Cultivating
115113 Crop Harvesting, Primarily by Machine
115114 Postharvest Crop Activities (except Cotton Ginning)
115115 Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders
115116 Farm Management Services
115210 Support Activities for Animal Production
115310 Support Activities for Forestry
21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
211 Oil and Gas Extraction
211120 Crude Petroleum Extraction
211130 Natural Gas Extraction
212 Mining (except Oil and Gas)
212114 Surface Coal Mining
212115 Underground Coal Mining
212210 Iron Ore Mining
212220 Gold Ore and Silver Ore Mining
212230 Copper, Nickel, Lead, and Zinc Mining
212290 Other Metal Ore Mining
212311 Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying
212312 Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying
212313 Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quarrying
212319 Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying
212321 Construction Sand and Gravel Mining
212322 Industrial Sand Mining
212323 Kaolin, Clay, and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining
212390 Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying
213 Support Activities for Mining
213111 Drilling Oil and Gas Wells
213112 Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations
213113 Support Activities for Coal Mining
213114 Support Activities for Metal Mining
213115 Support Activities for Nonmetallic Minerals (except Fuels) Mining
TUMF Category
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS TitleTUMF Category
Construction
23 Construction
236 Construction of Buildings
236115 New Single-Family Housing Construction (except For-Sale Builders)
236116 New Multifamily Housing Construction (except For-Sale Builders)
236117 New Housing For-Sale Builders
236118 Residential Remodelers
236210 Industrial Building Construction
236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction
237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
237110 Water and Sewer Line and Related Structures Construction
237120 Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction
237130 Power and Communication Line and Related Structures Construction
237210 Land Subdivision
237310 Highway, Street, and Bridge Construction
237990 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction
238 Specialty Trade Contractors
238110 Poured Concrete Foundation and Structure Contractors
238120 Structural Steel and Precast Concrete Contractors
238130 Framing Contractors
238140 Masonry Contractors
238150 Glass and Glazing Contractors
238160 Roofing Contractors
238170 Siding Contractors
238190 Other Foundation, Structure, and Building Exterior Contractors
238210 Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors
238220 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors
238290 Other Building Equipment Contractors
238310 Drywall and Insulation Contractors
238320 Painting and Wall Covering Contractors
238330 Flooring Contractors
238340 Tile and Terrazzo Contractors
238350 Finish Carpentry Contractors
238390 Other Building Finishing Contractors
238910 Site Preparation Contractors
238990 All Other Specialty Trade Contractors
Manufacturing
31-33 Manufacturing
311 Food Manufacturing
311111 Dog and Cat Food Manufacturing
311119 Other Animal Food Manufacturing
311211 Flour Milling
311212 Rice Milling
311213 Malt Manufacturing
311221 Wet Corn Milling and Starch Manufacturing
311224 Soybean and Other Oilseed Processing
311225 Fats and Oils Refining and Blending
311230 Breakfast Cereal Manufacturing
311313 Beet Sugar Manufacturing
311314 Cane Sugar Manufacturing
311340 Nonchocolate Confectionery Manufacturing
311351 Chocolate and Confectionery Manufacturing from Cacao Beans
311352 Confectionery Manufacturing from Purchased Chocolate
311411 Frozen Fruit, Juice, and Vegetable Manufacturing
311412 Frozen Specialty Food Manufacturing
311421 Fruit and Vegetable Canning
311422 Specialty Canning
311423 Dried and Dehydrated Food Manufacturing
311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing
311512 Creamery Butter Manufacturing
311513 Cheese Manufacturing
311514 Dry, Condensed, and Evaporated Dairy Product Manufacturing
311520 Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturing
311611 Animal (except Poultry) Slaughtering
311612 Meat Processed from Carcasses
311613 Rendering and Meat Byproduct Processing
311615 Poultry Processing
311710 Seafood Product Preparation and Packaging
311811 Retail Bakeries
311812 Commercial Bakeries
311813 Frozen Cakes, Pies, and Other Pastries Manufacturing
311821 Cookie and Cracker Manufacturing
311824 Dry Pasta, Dough, and Flour Mixes Manufacturing from Purchased Flour
311830 Tortilla Manufacturing
311911 Roasted Nuts and Peanut Butter Manufacturing
311919 Other Snack Food Manufacturing
311920 Coffee and Tea Manufacturing
311930 Flavoring Syrup and Concentrate Manufacturing
311941 Mayonnaise, Dressing, and Other Prepared Sauce Manufacturing
311942 Spice and Extract Manufacturing
311991 Perishable Prepared Food Manufacturing
311999 All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing
312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing
312111 Soft Drink Manufacturing
312112 Bottled Water Manufacturing
312113 Ice Manufacturing
312120 Breweries
312130 Wineries
312140 Distilleries
312230 Tobacco Manufacturing
313 Textile Mills
313110 Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills
313210 Broadwoven Fabric Mills
313220 Narrow Fabric Mills and Schiffli Machine Embroidery
313230 Nonwoven Fabric Mills
313240 Knit Fabric Mills
313310 Textile and Fabric Finishing Mills
313320 Fabric Coating Mills
314 Textile Product Mills
314110 Carpet and Rug Mills
314120 Curtain and Linen Mills
314910 Textile Bag and Canvas Mills
314994 Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire Cord, and Tire Fabric Mills
314999 All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills
315 Apparel Manufacturing
315120 Apparel Knitting Mills
315210 Cut and Sew Apparel Contractors
315250 Cut and Sew Apparel Manufacturing (except Contractors)
315990 Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing
316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing
316110 Leather and Hide Tanning and Finishing
316210 Footwear Manufacturing
316990 Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS TitleTUMF Category
321 Wood Product Manufacturing
321113 Sawmills
321114 Wood Preservation
321211 Hardwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing
321212 Softwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing
321215 Engineered Wood Member Manufacturing
321219 Reconstituted Wood Product Manufacturing
321911 Wood Window and Door Manufacturing
321912 Cut Stock, Resawing Lumber, and Planing
321918 Other Millwork (including Flooring)
321920 Wood Container and Pallet Manufacturing
321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing
321992 Prefabricated Wood Building Manufacturing
321999 All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product Manufacturing
322 Paper Manufacturing
322110 Pulp Mills
322120 Paper Mills
322130 Paperboard Mills
322211 Corrugated and Solid Fiber Box Manufacturing
322212 Folding Paperboard Box Manufacturing
322219 Other Paperboard Container Manufacturing
322220 Paper Bag and Coated and Treated Paper Manufacturing
322230 Stationery Product Manufacturing
322291 Sanitary Paper Product Manufacturing
322299 All Other Converted Paper Product Manufacturing
323 Printing and Related Support Activities
323111 Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books)
323113 Commercial Screen Printing
323117 Books Printing
323120 Support Activities for Printing
324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
324110 Petroleum Refineries
324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing
324122 Asphalt Shingle and Coating Materials Manufacturing
324191 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
324199 All Other Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
325 Chemical Manufacturing
325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing
325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing
325130 Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing
325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
325194 Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing
325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing
325212 Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
325220 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing
325311 Nitrogenous Fertilizer Manufacturing
325312 Phosphatic Fertilizer Manufacturing
325314 Fertilizer (Mixing Only) Manufacturing
325315 Compost Manufacturing
325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing
325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing
325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing
325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing
325414 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing
325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing
325520 Adhesive Manufacturing
325611 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing
325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
325613 Surface Active Agent Manufacturing
325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing
325910 Printing Ink Manufacturing
325920 Explosives Manufacturing
325991 Custom Compounding of Purchased Resins
325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, Chemical, and Copy Toner Manufacturing
325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
326111 Plastics Bag and Pouch Manufacturing
326112 Plastics Packaging Film and Sheet (including Laminated) Manufacturing
326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing
326121 Unlaminated Plastics Profile Shape Manufacturing
326122 Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
326130 Laminated Plastics Plate, Sheet (except Packaging), and Shape Manufacturing
326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing
326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing
326160 Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
326191 Plastics Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
326211 Tire Manufacturing (except Retreading)
326212 Tire Retreading
326220 Rubber and Plastics Hoses and Belting Manufacturing
326291 Rubber Product Manufacturing for Mechanical Use
326299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing
327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
327110 Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
327120 Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing
327211 Flat Glass Manufacturing
327212 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware Manufacturing
327213 Glass Container Manufacturing
327215 Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass
327310 Cement Manufacturing
327320 Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing
327331 Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing
327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
327390 Other Concrete Product Manufacturing
327410 Lime Manufacturing
327420 Gypsum Product Manufacturing
327910 Abrasive Product Manufacturing
327991 Cut Stone and Stone Product Manufacturing
327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing
327993 Mineral Wool Manufacturing
327999 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS TitleTUMF Category
331 Primary Metal Manufacturing
331110 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing
331210 Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from Purchased Steel
331221 Rolled Steel Shape Manufacturing
331222 Steel Wire Drawing
331313 Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production
331314 Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum
331315 Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and Foil Manufacturing
331318 Other Aluminum Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
331410 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
331420 Copper Rolling, Drawing, Extruding, and Alloying
331491 Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding
331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum)
331511 Iron Foundries
331512 Steel Investment Foundries
331513 Steel Foundries (except Investment)
331523 Nonferrous Metal Die-Casting Foundries
331524 Aluminum Foundries (except Die-Casting)
331529 Other Nonferrous Metal Foundries (except Die-Casting)
332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
332111 Iron and Steel Forging
332112 Nonferrous Forging
332114 Custom Roll Forming
332117 Powder Metallurgy Part Manufacturing
332119 Metal Crown, Closure, and Other Metal Stamping (except Automotive)
332215 Metal Kitchen Cookware, Utensil, Cutlery, and Flatware (except Precious) Manufacturing
332216 Saw Blade and Handtool Manufacturing
332311 Prefabricated Metal Building and Component Manufacturing
332312 Fabricated Structural Metal Manufacturing
332313 Plate Work Manufacturing
332321 Metal Window and Door Manufacturing
332322 Sheet Metal Work Manufacturing
332323 Ornamental and Architectural Metal Work Manufacturing
332410 Power Boiler and Heat Exchanger Manufacturing
332420 Metal Tank (Heavy Gauge) Manufacturing
332431 Metal Can Manufacturing
332439 Other Metal Container Manufacturing
332510 Hardware Manufacturing
332613 Spring Manufacturing
332618 Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing
332710 Machine Shops
332721 Precision Turned Product Manufacturing
332722 Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and Washer Manufacturing
332811 Metal Heat Treating
332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers
332813 Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring
332911 Industrial Valve Manufacturing
332912 Fluid Power Valve and Hose Fitting Manufacturing
332913 Plumbing Fixture Fitting and Trim Manufacturing
332919 Other Metal Valve and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
332991 Ball and Roller Bearing Manufacturing
332992 Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturing
332993 Ammunition (except Small Arms) Manufacturing
332994 Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing
332996 Fabricated Pipe and Pipe Fitting Manufacturing
332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
333 Machinery Manufacturing
333111 Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
333112 Lawn and Garden Tractor and Home Lawn and Garden Equipment Manufacturing
333120 Construction Machinery Manufacturing
333131 Mining Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
333132 Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing
333241 Food Product Machinery Manufacturing
333242 Semiconductor Machinery Manufacturing
333243 Sawmill, Woodworking, and Paper Machinery Manufacturing
333248 All Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
333310 Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing
333413 Industrial and Commercial Fan and Blower and Air Purification Equipment Manufacturing
333414 Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing
333415 Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing
333511 Industrial Mold Manufacturing
333514 Special Die and Tool, Die Set, Jig, and Fixture Manufacturing
333515 Cutting Tool and Machine Tool Accessory Manufacturing
333517 Machine Tool Manufacturing
333519 Rolling Mill and Other Metalworking Machinery Manufacturing
333611 Turbine and Turbine Generator Set Units Manufacturing
333612 Speed Changer, Industrial High-Speed Drive, and Gear Manufacturing
333613 Mechanical Power Transmission Equipment Manufacturing
333618 Other Engine Equipment Manufacturing
333912 Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing
333914 Measuring, Dispensing, and Other Pumping Equipment Manufacturing
333921 Elevator and Moving Stairway Manufacturing
333922 Conveyor and Conveying Equipment Manufacturing
333923 Overhead Traveling Crane, Hoist, and Monorail System Manufacturing
333924 Industrial Truck, Tractor, Trailer, and Stacker Machinery Manufacturing
333991 Power-Driven Handtool Manufacturing
333992 Welding and Soldering Equipment Manufacturing
333993 Packaging Machinery Manufacturing
333994 Industrial Process Furnace and Oven Manufacturing
333995 Fluid Power Cylinder and Actuator Manufacturing
333996 Fluid Power Pump and Motor Manufacturing
333998 All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing
334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing
334111 Electronic Computer Manufacturing
334112 Computer Storage Device Manufacturing
334118 Computer Terminal and Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing
334210 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing
334290 Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
334310 Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing
334412 Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing
334413 Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing
334416 Capacitor, Resistor, Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing
334417 Electronic Connector Manufacturing
334418 Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing
334419 Other Electronic Component Manufacturing
334510 Electromedical and Electrotherapeutic Apparatus Manufacturing
334511 Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing
334512 Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use
334513 Instruments and Related Products Manufacturing for Measuring, Displaying, and Controlling Industrial Process Variables
334514 Totalizing Fluid Meter and Counting Device Manufacturing
334515 Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals
334516 Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing
334517 Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing
334519 Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing
334610 Manufacturing and Reproducing Magnetic and Optical Media
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS TitleTUMF Category
335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
335131 Residential Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing
335132 Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Electric Lighting Fixture Manufacturing
335139 Electric Lamp Bulb and Other Lighting Equipment Manufacturing
335210 Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing
335220 Major Household Appliance Manufacturing
335311 Power, Distribution, and Specialty Transformer Manufacturing
335312 Motor and Generator Manufacturing
335313 Switchgear and Switchboard Apparatus Manufacturing
335314 Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing
335910 Battery Manufacturing
335921 Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing
335929 Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing
335931 Current-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing
335932 Noncurrent-Carrying Wiring Device Manufacturing
335991 Carbon and Graphite Product Manufacturing
335999 All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing
336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
336110 Automobile and Light Duty Motor Vehicle Manufacturing
336120 Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing
336211 Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing
336212 Truck Trailer Manufacturing
336213 Motor Home Manufacturing
336214 Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing
336310 Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
336320 Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment Manufacturing
336330 Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components (except Spring) Manufacturing
336340 Motor Vehicle Brake System Manufacturing
336350 Motor Vehicle Transmission and Power Train Parts Manufacturing
336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing
336370 Motor Vehicle Metal Stamping
336390 Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing
336411 Aircraft Manufacturing
336412 Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing
336414 Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Manufacturing
336415 Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Unit and Propulsion Unit Parts Manufacturing
336419 Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing
336510 Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing
336611 Ship Building and Repairing
336612 Boat Building
336991 Motorcycle, Bicycle, and Parts Manufacturing
336992 Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component Manufacturing
336999 All Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing
337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing
337110 Wood Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing
337121 Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing
337122 Nonupholstered Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing
337126 Household Furniture (except Wood and Upholstered) Manufacturing
337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing
337211 Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing
337212 Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing
337214 Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing
337215 Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing
337910 Mattress Manufacturing
337920 Blind and Shade Manufacturing
339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing
339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing
339113 Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing
339114 Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing
339115 Ophthalmic Goods Manufacturing
339116 Dental Laboratories
339910 Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing
339920 Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing
339930 Doll, Toy, and Game Manufacturing
339940 Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
339950 Sign Manufacturing
339991 Gasket, Packing, and Sealing Device Manufacturing
339992 Musical Instrument Manufacturing
339993 Fastener, Button, Needle, and Pin Manufacturing
339994 Broom, Brush, and Mop Manufacturing
339995 Burial Casket Manufacturing
339999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
42 Wholesale Trade
423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods
423110 Automobile and Other Motor Vehicle Merchant Wholesalers
423120 Motor Vehicle Supplies and New Parts Merchant Wholesalers
423130 Tire and Tube Merchant Wholesalers
423140 Motor Vehicle Parts (Used) Merchant Wholesalers
423210 Furniture Merchant Wholesalers
423220 Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers
423310 Lumber, Plywood, Millwork, and Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers
423320 Brick, Stone, and Related Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers
423330 Roofing, Siding, and Insulation Material Merchant Wholesalers
423390 Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers
423410 Photographic Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
423420 Office Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423430 Computer and Computer Peripheral Equipment and Software Merchant Wholesalers
423440 Other Commercial Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423450 Medical, Dental, and Hospital Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
423460 Ophthalmic Goods Merchant Wholesalers
423490 Other Professional Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
423510 Metal Service Centers and Other Metal Merchant Wholesalers
423520 Coal and Other Mineral and Ore Merchant Wholesalers
423610 Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423620 Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers
423690 Other Electronic Parts and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423710 Hardware Merchant Wholesalers
423720 Plumbing and Heating Equipment and Supplies (Hydronics) Merchant Wholesalers
423730 Warm Air Heating and Air-Conditioning Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
423740 Refrigeration Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
423810 Construction and Mining (except Oil Well) Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423820 Farm and Garden Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423830 Industrial Machinery and Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423840 Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
423850 Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
423860 Transportation Equipment and Supplies (except Motor Vehicle) Merchant Wholesalers
423910 Sporting and Recreational Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
423920 Toy and Hobby Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
423930 Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers
423940 Jewelry, Watch, Precious Stone, and Precious Metal Merchant Wholesalers
423990 Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS TitleTUMF Category
424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods
424110 Printing and Writing Paper Merchant Wholesalers
424120 Stationery and Office Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424130 Industrial and Personal Service Paper Merchant Wholesalers
424210 Drugs and Druggists' Sundries Merchant Wholesalers
424310 Piece Goods, Notions, and Other Dry Goods Merchant Wholesalers
424340 Footwear Merchant Wholesalers
424350 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Merchant Wholesalers
424410 General Line Grocery Merchant Wholesalers
424420 Packaged Frozen Food Merchant Wholesalers
424430 Dairy Product (except Dried or Canned) Merchant Wholesalers
424440 Poultry and Poultry Product Merchant Wholesalers
424450 Confectionery Merchant Wholesalers
424460 Fish and Seafood Merchant Wholesalers
424470 Meat and Meat Product Merchant Wholesalers
424480 Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers
424490 Other Grocery and Related Products Merchant Wholesalers
424510 Grain and Field Bean Merchant Wholesalers
424520 Livestock Merchant Wholesalers
424590 Other Farm Product Raw Material Merchant Wholesalers
424610 Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes Merchant Wholesalers
424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals
424720 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals)
424810 Beer and Ale Merchant Wholesalers
424820 Wine and Distilled Alcoholic Beverage Merchant Wholesalers
424910 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424920 Book, Periodical, and Newspaper Merchant Wholesalers
424930 Flower, Nursery Stock, and Florists' Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424940 Tobacco Product and Electronic Cigarette Merchant Wholesalers
424950 Paint, Varnish, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
424990 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
425 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
425120 Wholesale Trade Agents and Brokers
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities
22 Utilities
221 Utilities
221111 Hydroelectric Power Generation
221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation
221113 Nuclear Electric Power Generation
221114 Solar Electric Power Generation
221115 Wind Electric Power Generation
221116 Geothermal Electric Power Generation
221117 Biomass Electric Power Generation
221118 Other Electric Power Generation
221121 Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control
221122 Electric Power Distribution
221210 Natural Gas Distribution
221310 Water Supply and Irrigation Systems
221320 Sewage Treatment Facilities
221330 Steam and Air-Conditioning Supply
48-49 Transportation and Warehousing
481 Air Transportation
481111 Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation
481112 Scheduled Freight Air Transportation
481211 Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation
481212 Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation
481219 Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation
482 Rail Transportation
482111 Line-Haul Railroads
482112 Short Line Railroads
483 Water Transportation
483111 Deep Sea Freight Transportation
483112 Deep Sea Passenger Transportation
483113 Coastal and Great Lakes Freight Transportation
483114 Coastal and Great Lakes Passenger Transportation
483211 Inland Water Freight Transportation
483212 Inland Water Passenger Transportation
484 Truck Transportation
484110 General Freight Trucking, Local
484121 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Truckload
484122 General Freight Trucking, Long-Distance, Less Than Truckload
484210 Used Household and Office Goods Moving
484220 Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Local
484230 Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Long-Distance
485 Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
485111 Mixed Mode Transit Systems
485112 Commuter Rail Systems
485113 Bus and Other Motor Vehicle Transit Systems
485119 Other Urban Transit Systems
485210 Interurban and Rural Bus Transportation
485310 Taxi and Ridesharing Services
485320 Limousine Service
485410 School and Employee Bus Transportation
485510 Charter Bus Industry
485991 Special Needs Transportation
485999 All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation
486 Pipeline Transportation
486110 Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil
486210 Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas
486910 Pipeline Transportation of Refined Petroleum Products
486990 All Other Pipeline Transportation
487 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation
487110 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Land
487210 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Water
487990 Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation, Other
488 Support Activities for Transportation
488111 Air Traffic Control
488119 Other Airport Operations
488190 Other Support Activities for Air Transportation
488210 Support Activities for Rail Transportation
488310 Port and Harbor Operations
488320 Marine Cargo Handling
488330 Navigational Services to Shipping
488390 Other Support Activities for Water Transportation
488410 Motor Vehicle Towing
488490 Other Support Activities for Road Transportation
488510 Freight Transportation Arrangement
488991 Packing and Crating
488999 All Other Support Activities for Transportation
491 Postal Service
491110 Postal Service
492 Couriers and Messengers
492110 Couriers and Express Delivery Services
492210 Local Messengers and Local Delivery
493 Warehousing and Storage
493110 General Warehousing and Storage
493120 Refrigerated Warehousing and Storage
493130 Farm Product Warehousing and Storage
493190 Other Warehousing and Storage
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS TitleTUMF Category
Retail
Retail Trade
44-45 Retail Trade
441 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
441110 New Car Dealers
441120 Used Car Dealers
441210 Recreational Vehicle Dealers
441222 Boat Dealers
441227 Motorcycle, ATV, and All Other Motor Vehicle Dealers
441330 Automotive Parts and Accessories Retailers
441340 Tire Dealers
444 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers
444110 Home Centers
444120 Paint and Wallpaper Retailers
444140 Hardware Retailers
444180 Other Building Material Dealers
444230 Outdoor Power Equipment Retailers
444240 Nursery, Garden Center, and Farm Supply Retailers
445 Food and Beverage Retailers
445110 Supermarkets and Other Grocery Retailers (except Convenience Retailers)
445131 Convenience Retailers
445132 Vending Machine Operators
445230 Fruit and Vegetable Retailers
445240 Meat Retailers
445250 Fish and Seafood Retailers
445291 Baked Goods Retailers
445292 Confectionery and Nut Retailers
445298 All Other Specialty Food Retailers
445320 Beer, Wine, and Liquor Retailers
449 Furniture, Home Furnishings, Electronics, and Appliance Retailers
449110 Furniture Retailers
449121 Floor Covering Retailers
449122 Window Treatment Retailers
449129 All Other Home Furnishings Retailers
449210 Electronics and Appliance Retailers
455 General Merchandise Retailers
455110 Department Stores
455211 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters
455219 All Other General Merchandise Retailers
456 Health and Personal Care Retailers
456110 Pharmacies and Drug Retailers
456120 Cosmetics, Beauty Supplies, and Perfume Retailers
456130 Optical Goods Retailers
456191 Food (Health) Supplement Retailers
456199 All Other Health and Personal Care Retailers
457 Gasoline Stations and Fuel Dealers
457110 Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores
457120 Other Gasoline Stations
457210 Fuel Dealers
458 Clothing, Clothing Accessories, Shoe, and Jewelry Retailers
458110 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Retailers
458210 Shoe Retailers
458310 Jewelry Retailers
458320 Luggage and Leather Goods Retailers
459 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument, Book, and Miscellaneous Retailers
459110 Sporting Goods Retailers
459120 Hobby, Toy, and Game Retailers
459130 Sewing, Needlework, and Piece Goods Retailers
459140 Musical Instrument and Supplies Retailers
459210 Book Retailers and News Dealers
459310 Florists
459410 Office Supplies and Stationery Retailers
459420 Gift, Novelty, and Souvenir Retailers
459510 Used Merchandise Retailers
459910 Pet and Pet Supplies Retailers
459920 Art Dealers
459930 Manufactured (Mobile) Home Dealers
459991 Tobacco, Electronic Cigarette, and Other Smoking Supplies Retailers
459999 All Other Miscellaneous Retailers
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS TitleTUMF Category
Service
Information
51 Information
512 Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries
512110 Motion Picture and Video Production
512120 Motion Picture and Video Distribution
512131 Motion Picture Theaters (except Drive-Ins)
512132 Drive-In Motion Picture Theaters
512191 Teleproduction and Other Postproduction Services
512199 Other Motion Picture and Video Industries
512230 Music Publishers
512240 Sound Recording Studios
512250 Record Production and Distribution
512290 Other Sound Recording Industries
513 Publishing Industries
513110 Newspaper Publishers
513120 Periodical Publishers
513130 Book Publishers
513140 Directory and Mailing List Publishers
513191 Greeting Card Publishers
513199 All Other Publishers
513210 Software Publishers
516 Broadcasting and Content Providers
516110 Radio Broadcasting Stations
516120 Television Broadcasting Stations
516210 Media Streaming Distribution Services, Social Networks, and Other Media Networks and Content Providers
517 Telecommunications
517111 Wired Telecommunications Carriers
517112 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)
517121 Telecommunications Resellers
517122 Agents for Wireless Telecommunications Services
517410 Satellite Telecommunications
517810 All Other Telecommunications
518 Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services
518210 Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services
519 Web Search Portals, Libraries, Archives, and Other Information Services
519210 Libraries and Archives
519290 Web Search Portals and All Other Information Services
Financial Activities
52 Finance and Insurance
521 Monetary Authorities-Central Bank
521110 Monetary Authorities-Central Bank
522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities
522110 Commercial Banking
522130 Credit Unions
522180 Savings Institutions and Other Depository Credit Intermediation
522210 Credit Card Issuing
522220 Sales Financing
522291 Consumer Lending
522292 Real Estate Credit
522299 International, Secondary Market, and All Other Nondepository Credit Intermediation
522310 Mortgage and Nonmortgage Loan Brokers
522320 Financial Transactions Processing, Reserve, and Clearinghouse Activities
522390 Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation
523 Securities, Commodity Contracts, and Other Financial Investments and Related Activities
523150 Investment Banking and Securities Intermediation
523160 Commodity Contracts Intermediation
523210 Securities and Commodity Exchanges
523910 Miscellaneous Intermediation
523940 Portfolio Management and Investment Advice
523991 Trust, Fiduciary, and Custody Activities
523999 Miscellaneous Financial Investment Activities
524 Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
524113 Direct Life Insurance Carriers
524114 Direct Health and Medical Insurance Carriers
524126 Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Carriers
524127 Direct Title Insurance Carriers
524128 Other Direct Insurance (except Life, Health, and Medical) Carriers
524130 Reinsurance Carriers
524210 Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
524291 Claims Adjusting
524292 Pharmacy Benefit Management and Other Third Party Administration of Insurance and Pension Funds
524298 All Other Insurance Related Activities
525 Funds, Trusts, and Other Financial Vehicles
525110 Pension Funds
525120 Health and Welfare Funds
525190 Other Insurance Funds
525910 Open-End Investment Funds
525920 Trusts, Estates, and Agency Accounts
525990 Other Financial Vehicles
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
531 Real Estate
531110 Lessors of Residential Buildings and Dwellings
531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Miniwarehouses)
531130 Lessors of Miniwarehouses and Self-Storage Units
531190 Lessors of Other Real Estate Property
531210 Offices of Real Estate Agents and Brokers
531311 Residential Property Managers
531312 Nonresidential Property Managers
531320 Offices of Real Estate Appraisers
531390 Other Activities Related to Real Estate
532 Rental and Leasing Services
532111 Passenger Car Rental
532112 Passenger Car Leasing
532120 Truck, Utility Trailer, and RV (Recreational Vehicle) Rental and Leasing
532210 Consumer Electronics and Appliances Rental
532281 Formal Wear and Costume Rental
532282 Video Tape and Disc Rental
532283 Home Health Equipment Rental
532284 Recreational Goods Rental
532289 All Other Consumer Goods Rental
532310 General Rental Centers
532411 Commercial Air, Rail, and Water Transportation Equipment Rental and Leasing
532412 Construction, Mining, and Forestry Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
532420 Office Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
532490 Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
533 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works)
533110 Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets (except Copyrighted Works)
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS TitleTUMF Category
Professional and Business Services
54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
541110 Offices of Lawyers
541120 Offices of Notaries
541191 Title Abstract and Settlement Offices
541199 All Other Legal Services
541211 Offices of Certified Public Accountants
541213 Tax Preparation Services
541214 Payroll Services
541219 Other Accounting Services
541310 Architectural Services
541320 Landscape Architectural Services
541330 Engineering Services
541340 Drafting Services
541350 Building Inspection Services
541360 Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services
541370 Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services
541380 Testing Laboratories and Services
541410 Interior Design Services
541420 Industrial Design Services
541430 Graphic Design Services
541490 Other Specialized Design Services
541511 Custom Computer Programming Services
541512 Computer Systems Design Services
541513 Computer Facilities Management Services
541519 Other Computer Related Services
541611 Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services
541612 Human Resources Consulting Services
541613 Marketing Consulting Services
541614 Process, Physical Distribution, and Logistics Consulting Services
541618 Other Management Consulting Services
541620 Environmental Consulting Services
541690 Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
541713 Research and Development in Nanotechnology
541714 Research and Development in Biotechnology (except Nanobiotechnology)
541715 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)
541720 Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities
541810 Advertising Agencies
541820 Public Relations Agencies
541830 Media Buying Agencies
541840 Media Representatives
541850 Indoor and Outdoor Display Advertising
541860 Direct Mail Advertising
541870 Advertising Material Distribution Services
541890 Other Services Related to Advertising
541910 Marketing Research and Public Opinion Polling
541921 Photography Studios, Portrait
541922 Commercial Photography
541930 Translation and Interpretation Services
541940 Veterinary Services
541990 All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
55 Management of Companies and Enterprises
551 Management of Companies and Enterprises
551111 Offices of Bank Holding Companies
551112 Offices of Other Holding Companies
551114 Corporate, Subsidiary, and Regional Managing Offices
56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services
561 Administrative and Support Services
561110 Office Administrative Services
561210 Facilities Support Services
561311 Employment Placement Agencies
561312 Executive Search Services
561320 Temporary Help Services
561330 Professional Employer Organizations
561410 Document Preparation Services
561421 Telephone Answering Services
561422 Telemarketing Bureaus and Other Contact Centers
561431 Private Mail Centers
561439 Other Business Service Centers (including Copy Shops)
561440 Collection Agencies
561450 Credit Bureaus
561491 Repossession Services
561492 Court Reporting and Stenotype Services
561499 All Other Business Support Services
561510 Travel Agencies
561520 Tour Operators
561591 Convention and Visitors Bureaus
561599 All Other Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services
561611 Investigation and Personal Background Check Services
561612 Security Guards and Patrol Services
561613 Armored Car Services
561621 Security Systems Services (except Locksmiths)
561622 Locksmiths
561710 Exterminating and Pest Control Services
561720 Janitorial Services
561730 Landscaping Services
561740 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning Services
561790 Other Services to Buildings and Dwellings
561910 Packaging and Labeling Services
561920 Convention and Trade Show Organizers
561990 All Other Support Services
562 Waste Management and Remediation Services
562111 Solid Waste Collection
562112 Hazardous Waste Collection
562119 Other Waste Collection
562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
562212 Solid Waste Landfill
562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators
562219 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
562910 Remediation Services
562920 Materials Recovery Facilities
562991 Septic Tank and Related Services
562998 All Other Miscellaneous Waste Management Services
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS TitleTUMF Category
Education and Health Services
61 Educational Services
611 Educational Services
611110 Elementary and Secondary Schools
611210 Junior Colleges
611310 Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
611410 Business and Secretarial Schools
611420 Computer Training
611430 Professional and Management Development Training
611511 Cosmetology and Barber Schools
611512 Flight Training
611513 Apprenticeship Training
611519 Other Technical and Trade Schools
611610 Fine Arts Schools
611620 Sports and Recreation Instruction
611630 Language Schools
611691 Exam Preparation and Tutoring
611692 Automobile Driving Schools
611699 All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction
611710 Educational Support Services
62 Health Care and Social Assistance
621 Ambulatory Health Care Services
621111 Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists)
621112 Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists
621210 Offices of Dentists
621310 Offices of Chiropractors
621320 Offices of Optometrists
621330 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)
621340 Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists, and Audiologists
621391 Offices of Podiatrists
621399 Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners
621410 Family Planning Centers
621420 Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers
621491 HMO Medical Centers
621492 Kidney Dialysis Centers
621493 Freestanding Ambulatory Surgical and Emergency Centers
621498 All Other Outpatient Care Centers
621511 Medical Laboratories
621512 Diagnostic Imaging Centers
621610 Home Health Care Services
621910 Ambulance Services
621991 Blood and Organ Banks
621999 All Other Miscellaneous Ambulatory Health Care Services
622 Hospitals
622110 General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
622210 Psychiatric and Substance Abuse Hospitals
622310 Specialty (except Psychiatric and Substance Abuse) Hospitals
623 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities
623110 Nursing Care Facilities (Skilled Nursing Facilities)
623210 Residential Intellectual and Developmental Disability Facilities
623220 Residential Mental Health and Substance Abuse Facilities
623311 Continuing Care Retirement Communities
623312 Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly
623990 Other Residential Care Facilities
624 Social Assistance
624110 Child and Youth Services
624120 Services for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities
624190 Other Individual and Family Services
624210 Community Food Services
624221 Temporary Shelters
624229 Other Community Housing Services
624230 Emergency and Other Relief Services
624310 Vocational Rehabilitation Services
624410 Child Care Services
Leisure and Hospitality
71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
711 Performing Arts, Spectator Sports, and Related Industries
711110 Theater Companies and Dinner Theaters
711120 Dance Companies
711130 Musical Groups and Artists
711190 Other Performing Arts Companies
711211 Sports Teams and Clubs
711212 Racetracks
711219 Other Spectator Sports
711310 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events with Facilities
711320 Promoters of Performing Arts, Sports, and Similar Events without Facilities
711410 Agents and Managers for Artists, Athletes, Entertainers, and Other Public Figures
711510 Independent Artists, Writers, and Performers
712 Museums, Historical Sites, and Similar Institutions
712110 Museums
712120 Historical Sites
712130 Zoos and Botanical Gardens
712190 Nature Parks and Other Similar Institutions
713 Amusement, Gambling, and Recreation Industries
713110 Amusement and Theme Parks
713120 Amusement Arcades
713210 Casinos (except Casino Hotels)
713290 Other Gambling Industries
713910 Golf Courses and Country Clubs
713920 Skiing Facilities
713930 Marinas
713940 Fitness and Recreational Sports Centers
713950 Bowling Centers
713990 All Other Amusement and Recreation Industries
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS TitleTUMF Category
72 Accommodation and Food Services
721 Accommodation
721110 Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels
721120 Casino Hotels
721191 Bed-and-Breakfast Inns
721199 All Other Traveler Accommodation
721211 RV (Recreational Vehicle) Parks and Campgrounds
721214 Recreational and Vacation Camps (except Campgrounds)
721310 Rooming and Boarding Houses, Dormitories, and Workers' Camps
722 Food Services and Drinking Places
722310 Food Service Contractors
722320 Caterers
722330 Mobile Food Services
722410 Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
722511 Full-Service Restaurants
722513 Limited-Service Restaurants
722514 Cafeterias, Grill Buffets, and Buffets
722515 Snack and Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars
Other Service
81 Other Services (except Public Administration)
811 Repair and Maintenance
811111 General Automotive Repair
811114 Specialized Automotive Repair
811121 Automotive Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance
811122 Automotive Glass Replacement Shops
811191 Automotive Oil Change and Lubrication Shops
811192 Car Washes
811198 All Other Automotive Repair and Maintenance
811210 Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance
811310 Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance
811411 Home and Garden Equipment Repair and Maintenance
811412 Appliance Repair and Maintenance
811420 Reupholstery and Furniture Repair
811430 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair
811490 Other Personal and Household Goods Repair and Maintenance
812 Personal and Laundry Services
812111 Barber Shops
812112 Beauty Salons
812113 Nail Salons
812191 Diet and Weight Reducing Centers
812199 Other Personal Care Services
812210 Funeral Homes and Funeral Services
812220 Cemeteries and Crematories
812310 Coin-Operated Laundries and Drycleaners
812320 Drycleaning and Laundry Services (except Coin-Operated)
812331 Linen Supply
812332 Industrial Launderers
812910 Pet Care (except Veterinary) Services
812921 Photofinishing Laboratories (except One-Hour)
812922 One-Hour Photofinishing
812930 Parking Lots and Garages
812990 All Other Personal Services
813 Religious, Grantmaking, Civic, Professional, and Similar Organizations
813110 Religious Organizations
813211 Grantmaking Foundations
813212 Voluntary Health Organizations
813219 Other Grantmaking and Giving Services
813311 Human Rights Organizations
813312 Environment, Conservation and Wildlife Organizations
813319 Other Social Advocacy Organizations
813410 Civic and Social Organizations
813910 Business Associations
813920 Professional Organizations
813930 Labor Unions and Similar Labor Organizations
813940 Political Organizations
813990 Other Similar Organizations (except Business, Professional, Labor, and Political Organizations)
814 Private Households
814110 Private Households
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TUMF Non-Residential Category Detailed NAICS Correspondence
SCAG RTP/SCS NAICS Two Digit Code NAICS Three Digit Code NAICS Six Digit Code
Employment Categories NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS Title NAICS Code NAICS TitleTUMF Category
Government/Public Sector
Government
92 Public Administration
921 Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support
921110 Executive Offices
921120 Legislative Bodies
921130 Public Finance Activities
921140 Executive and Legislative Offices, Combined
921150 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Governments
921190 Other General Government Support
922 Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
922110 Courts
922120 Police Protection
922130 Legal Counsel and Prosecution
922140 Correctional Institutions
922150 Parole Offices and Probation Offices
922160 Fire Protection
922190 Other Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities
923 Administration of Human Resource Programs
923110 Administration of Education Programs
923120 Administration of Public Health Programs
923130 Administration of Human Resource Programs (except Education, Public Health, and Veterans' Affairs Programs)
923140 Administration of Veterans' Affairs
924 Administration of Environmental Quality Programs
924110 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs
924120 Administration of Conservation Programs
925 Administration of Housing Programs, Urban Planning, and Community Development
925110 Administration of Housing Programs
925120 Administration of Urban Planning and Community and Rural Development
926 Administration of Economic Programs
926110 Administration of General Economic Programs
926120 Regulation and Administration of Transportation Programs
926130 Regulation and Administration of Communications, Electric, Gas, and Other Utilities
926140 Regulation of Agricultural Marketing and Commodities
926150 Regulation, Licensing, and Inspection of Miscellaneous Commercial Sectors
927 Space Research and Technology
927110 Space Research and Technology
928 National Security and International Affairs
928110 National Security
928120 International Affairs
Source:SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
California Employment Development Department (EDD)
US Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), 2022
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
C-1
Appendix C - Western Riverside County Traffic Growth 2018 – 2045
Existing (2018) and future (2045) traffic data were derived from RivCoM. The model area
of coverage, level of roadway network and TAZ detail, and application on other
regional transportation study efforts represented RivCoM as the appropriate tool for
evaluating traffic growth as part of the Nexus Study.
The forecasts of existing and future congestion levels were derived from the Year 2018
Existing and Year 2045 No-Build scenarios, respectively. The 2018 Existing and 2045 No-
Build scenarios were developed using RivCoM to model 2018 and 2045 SED,
respectively, as derived from the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS adopted SED forecasts, on the
transportation network as it existed in 2021. The 2018 existing transportation network
represents the most recent baseline network developed for RivCoM, and only reflects
the inclusion of those projects that were funded, committed and under construction at
that time, and therefore imminently to be part of the baseline transportation system in
2018. For the purposes of the TUMF network analysis, additional improvements on the
TUMF arterial highway network that were either completed or under construction in the
period between 2018 and December 2021 were added to the network to create a
2021 existing network. The 2021 existing network was subsequently modeled in RivCoM
using both 2018 and 2045 SED to provide the 2018 Baseline and 2045 No-Build scenarios
as the basis for comparison and analysis. The 2045 No-Build scenario did not include
transportation improvements that are planned as part of the recently adopted SCAG
2020 RTP/SCS on the basis they are uncommitted (meaning that their implementation is
dependent on securing future funding and approval). Inclusion of the uncommitted
improvements masks the congestion effects of increasing travel. Inclusion of these
improvements and the resultant masking is not appropriate for this analysis aimed at
identifying the effects of increasing travel if improvements were not built.
The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from RivCoM for the purpose of
calculating the following measures for Western Riverside County only. Traffic growth
impacts for each of the two scenarios were calculated using the TransCAD platform.
Total daily vehicle miles of travel (VMT),
Total daily VMT on facilities experiencing LOS E or worse.
Total daily vehicle hours of travel (VHT), and
Total combined daily vehicle hours of delay (VHD)
The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values.
VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume
VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume
VHD = VHT – (Free-flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume)
VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90)13
13 LOS Thresholds for LOS E are based on the 2010 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2010) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for
Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 14-5, Chapter 14, Page 14-5).
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
C-2
RivCoM breaks down its roadway network into functional categories called assignment
groups. The measures were calculated selectively for all facilities, freeways only, arterials
only, and TUMF arterials only by including and excluding different assignment groups
and facilities. For the calculation of measures on “all facilities”, only the centroid
connectors were excluded. Arterial values excluded all mixed-flow to carpool lane
connector ramps, freeways, carpool lanes, centroid connectors, and freeway-to-
freeway connector ramps, respectively. Freeways were defined as including mixed-
flow to carpool lane connector ramps, freeways, carpool lanes, and freeway-to-
freeway connector ramps, respectively.
The 2021 Existing Network by Facility Type is included in this Appendix as Exhibit C-1. The
2021 existing network was used as the basis for the 2018 Existing and 2045 No-Build
scenarios by modeling 2018 and 2045 SED, respectively, on the 2021 existing network
using RivCoM to determine the comparative effects of population, household an
employment growth in the region. The results of the analysis of existing and future
congestion levels are presented for peak periods in Exhibit C-2 and for daily in Exhibit C-
3 in this Appendix and extracted for the combined peak periods in Table 3.1 of the
study report.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
C-4
EXHIBIT C-2
Western Riverside County
Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 - 2045) – Peak Periods
Measures of Performance
AM Peak PM Peak
2018 2045 % Change % Annual 2018 2045 % Change % Annual
VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 10,324,900 13,225,039 28% 0.9% 12,959,824 16,672,215 29% 0.9%
VMT - FREEWAYS 5,877,972 6,720,682 14% 0.5% 7,636,550 8,769,602 15% 0.5%
VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 4,446,928 6,504,357 46% 1.4% 5,323,274 7,902,613 48% 1.5%
TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 2,793,846 3,826,810 37% 1.2% 3,423,139 4,770,390 39% 1.2%
VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 251,133 435,243 73% 2.1% 290,218 480,196 65% 1.9%
VHT - FREEWAYS 120,257 186,102 55% 1.6% 143,535 213,027 48% 1.5%
VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 130,875 249,142 90% 2.4% 146,683 267,169 82% 2.2%
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 81,578 154,106 89% 2.4% 92,877 166,763 80% 2.2%
VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 57,989 177,814 207% 4.2% 50,911 160,242 215% 4.3%
VHD - FREEWAYS 34,221 86,616 153% 3.5% 31,935 84,033 163% 3.6%
VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 23,768 91,198 284% 5.1% 18,977 76,209 302% 5.3%
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 18,024 66,789 271% 5.0% 15,225 58,074 281% 5.1%
VMT LOS E & F - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 2,960,551 6,364,419 115% 2.9% 2,644,519 7,005,063 165% 3.7%
VMT LOS E & F - FREEWAYS 2,435,804 4,276,258 76% 2.1% 2,289,667 5,040,633 120% 3.0%
VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 524,747 2,088,161 298% 5.2% 354,852 1,964,430 454% 6.5%
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E & F 448,168 1,585,571 254% 4.8% 317,614 1,598,561 403% 6.2%
% of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E & F 16% 41% 9% 34%
* Based on RivCoM 2018 network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network completed.
NOTES:
Volume is adjusted by PCE factor
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system)
VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system)
VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and
free-flow (ideal) travel time)
LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios).
LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
C-5
EXHIBIT C-3
Western Riverside County
Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2018 - 2045) – Daily
Measures of Performance
Peak Periods (Total) Daily
2018 2045 % Change % Annual 2018 2045 % Change % Annual
VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 23,284,724 29,897,254 28% 0.9% 41,378,907 53,832,389 30% 1.0%
VMT - FREEWAYS 13,514,522 15,490,284 15% 0.5% 24,642,357 29,200,582 18% 0.6%
VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 9,770,202 14,406,970 47% 1.4% 16,736,551 24,631,807 47% 1.4%
TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 6,216,985 8,597,200 38% 1.2% 10,794,415 15,170,125 41% 1.3%
VHT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 541,350 915,439 69% 2.0% 893,813 1,433,458 60% 1.8%
VHT - FREEWAYS 263,792 399,128 51% 1.5% 440,073 637,990 45% 1.4%
VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 277,558 516,311 86% 2.3% 453,740 795,469 75% 2.1%
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 174,455 320,869 84% 2.3% 285,520 496,757 74% 2.1%
VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 108,900 338,056 210% 4.3% 131,965 410,511 211% 4.3%
VHD - FREEWAYS 66,156 170,649 158% 3.6% 79,532 208,287 162% 3.6%
VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 42,745 167,407 292% 5.2% 52,434 202,223 286% 5.1%
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 33,249 124,863 276% 5.0% 41,025 152,200 271% 5.0%
VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 5,605,070 13,369,483 139% 3.3% 6,153,146 16,090,205 161% 3.6%
VMT LOS E - FREEWAYS 4,725,471 9,316,891 97% 2.5% 5,141,215 11,306,348 120% 3.0%
VMT LOS E & F - ALL ARTERIALS 879,599 4,052,592 361% 5.8% 1,011,931 4,783,858 373% 5.9%
TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 765,782 3,184,133 316% 5.4% 878,465 3,819,635 335% 5.6%
% of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 12% 37% 8% 25%
* Based on RivCoM 2018 network and SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2021 arterial network completed.
NOTES:
Volume is adjusted by PCE factor
VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system)
VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system)
VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free
LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios).
LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
D-1
Appendix D - Western Riverside County Bus Transit System Ridership 2023 – 2045
Actual average weekday daily ridership for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) transit bus
services was tabulated for 2023. Forecast average weekday daily ridership for RTA bus
transit services was retrieved from the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model for horizon year 2045.
The bus transit ridership for 2023 and 2045 was tabulated to represent existing and future
regional bus transit trips consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section
3.1 and Appendix C. Table D-1 summarizes the weekday bus transit ridership in Western
Riverside County.
TABLE D-1 - Regional Bus Transit Weekday System Ridership
Year Western Riverside
Weekday Projected System Ridership
2023* 16,575
2045** 57,282
Notes: * - 2023 actual average weekday daily ridership provided by
RTA staff December 1, 2023
** - 2045 forecast average weekday daily ridership obtained
from SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model as provided by Fehr and
Peers, November 28, 2023
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
E-1
Appendix E - Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials
Performance Measures
An integral element of the Nexus Study is the designation of the Western Riverside
County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the “TUMF
Network”). This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and
collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter-community trips in
Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system, and represents
the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF
funded improvements. The Regional System of Highways and Arterials does NOT
include the freeways of Western Riverside County which primarily serve inter-regional
trips.
The designation of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials in the original TUMF
Nexus Study adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in October 2002 was
initiated with the identification of highways and roadways that met certain specified
guidelines as defined by the WRCOG Public Works Committee. The guidelines are
defined in Section 4.1 of the Nexus Report, and include:
1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at future
buildout (not including freeways).
2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between
communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County.
3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day in the
future horizon year.
4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 (LOS E) or greater in the
future horizon year.
5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services.
6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional,
recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation facilities
(such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers).
The original candidate facilities were identified by overlaying various transportation
system and land use plots depicting parameters consistent with those defined by the
specified guidelines. These plots included existing and proposed numbers of lanes,
network volumes and volume to capacity ratio (LOS) derived from SCAG CTP Model
networks developed by Transcore to support the ongoing Western Riverside County
CETAP study, and existing land use information provided by SCAG. These plots were
included in the Appendices that accompanied the original 2002 TUMF Nexus Study.
Fixed route transit service information was provided by the Riverside County Regional
Transportation Authority (RTA).
These various data inputs were overlaid and reviewed leading the definition of a
segmented skeletal network of highways and roadways for further consideration. The
skeletal network was further enhanced to reflect regional connectivity and access to
activity center considerations. An initial draft Regional System of Highways and Arterials
was developed and subsequently distributed to the County of Riverside and each City
in Western Riverside County for review in the context of their respective City General
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
E-2
Plan Circulation Elements, primarily to confirm existing and future number of lanes and
appropriateness of the facilities identified. The initial draft network was subsequently
revised to consolidate appropriate General Plan Circulation Elements, including the
identification of proposed new facilities as alternatives to existing facilities. It should be
pointed out that the Regional System of Highways and Arterials does not represent a
simple compilation of regional General Plan Circulation Elements, but rather
incorporates the elements of regional General Plan Circulation Elements that are
necessary for mitigating the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development
within the horizon year of the TUMF program.
The consolidated list of proposed network improvements (along with associated initial
cost estimates) was subsequently distributed to each of the WRCOG jurisdictions,
individual landowners, and other stakeholders including representatives of the
development community through the Building Industry Association (BIA) for review. The
review of the consolidated list of improvements (and associated costs) prompted a
series of five peer review workshop meetings to specifically review each segment of
roadway identified and the associated improvements to mitigate the traffic impacts of
new development. One peer review workshop meeting was held for each of the five
zones in the WRCOG region with meetings held at the Riverside County Assessor’s
Office between June 27, 2002 and July 18, 2002. The peer review workshop meetings
involved representatives from WRCOG, the respective zone jurisdictions and the BIA.
The peer review workshops culminated in the development (by consensus of the
groups) of a revised list of proposed network improvements (and associated costs)
more accurately reflecting the improvements necessary to mitigate the cumulative
regional traffic impacts of new development.
Following the peer review, the initial Regional System of Highways and Arterials was
reviewed and endorsed by the TUMF Technical Advisory Committee, the TUMF Policy
Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee and utilized as the basis for
developing the original TUMF Nexus Study in October 2002.
For the 2024 update of the TUMF Nexus Study, the Regional System of Highways and
Arterials was reassessed. Consistent with the changing rate of new development
forecast for Western Riverside County as part of the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS, including
reductions in the overall level of non-residential employment, the review of the TUMF
Network as part of the 2024 Nexus Update ensured facilities generally still met the
previously described performance guidelines, and/or that the scope and magnitude of
specific improvements to the TUMF Network were roughly proportional to the impacts
needing to be mitigated. This review process involved the comparison of model
outputs for the 2018 Baseline and 2045 No-Build Scenarios on the 2021 Existing arterial
network to identify those facilities no longer expected to be impacted substantially by
the cumulative effects of traffic growth from new development. This review resulted in
various changes in the scope and magnitude of specific improvements previously
identified on the TUMF Network. The updated model output plots utilized as the basis
for the latest network review are included in this appendix as Exhibit E-1 through E-8.
The Regional System of Highways and Arterials is included as Figure 4.1 in the Nexus
Study report.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-1
Appendix F - TUMF Network Cost Assumptions
The TUMF program was established as a uniform impact fee program that is applied to
mitigate the cumulative transportation impacts of new development on the regional
arterial highway system. In establishing the technical basis for TUMF, like any impact fee
program, there are two fundamental requirements that must be addressed: establishing
a rational nexus for the program; and determining that any fee is roughly proportional
to the impact of a proposed development. These requirements are rooted in two well-
known legal cases: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825;
and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374.
To establish project costs that meet the rough proportionality test for an expansive
network of facilities, WRCOG utilizes a conceptual planning level project and cost
estimation approach based on typical unit costs for a variety of project types and
conditions. These unit costs are intended to reflect a range of values that are typical
for the types of projects that are necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts
of new development. These unit costs are developed for each typical project type
based on actual observed values for the various materials, labor and right-of-way that
would typically be required to complete a project. Although the actual materials,
labor, right-of-way and associate costs to complete each specific project can be
expected to vary based on the particular conditions of each site and project
requirements at the time the project is actually implemented, the approach of using
typical unit costs as the basis for the TUMF program represents a manageable and
appropriate level of detail to establish conceptual project cost estimates that meet the
requirement for rough proportionality.
The application of typical unit costs and the associated identification of a maximum
TUMF share for each eligible project also provides a framework that protects the
program from projects with actual costs that vary significantly from the typical cost
estimates used as the program basis. The TUMF program administrative polices limit
reimbursement of costs associated with eligible TUMF projects to the lesser of maximum
TUMF share identified in the Nexus Study or the actual eligible project costs. In this
manner, projects that are completed by participating jurisdictions or developers for less
than the maximum TUMF share are reimbursed (or credited) for the actual amount
expended, while projects that exceed the maximum TUMF share are only reimbursed
(or credited) by the program up to the maximum TUMF share value ensuring that the
program is mitigating impacts at a level that is roughly proportional to that typically
expected, and is not subject to extreme project costs to address unusual or exceptional
local conditions or requirements.
For the purposes of TUMF, unit cost values were developed for various eligible
improvement types that all provide additional capacity needed to mitigate the
cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development to facilities on the TUMF
Network. Eligible improvement types include:
1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes;
2. Construction of new Network roadway segments;
3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures;
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-2
4. Construction of new Network bridge structures;
5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways;
6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways;
7. Grade separation of existing Network at-grade railroad crossings;
8. Expansion of existing Network-to-Network intersections;
9. Infrastructure for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) of Network roadway
segments.
Because roadway improvement standards vary considerably between respective
jurisdictions, a typical roadway standard for the TUMF Network was recommended by
the Public Works Committee (PWC) during the development of the original TUMF Nexus
Study adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in October 2002 as the basis for
developing the TUMF Network cost estimate. The typical roadway standard assumes
the following design characteristics that are consistent with the minimum requirements
of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual:
Asphalt concrete pavement and appropriate base material to accomplish up to
12 feet per travel lane plus up to four feet for ancillary treatments (e.g. shoulders,
or Class II Bike Lane);
Concrete curb and gutter and associated drainage (e.g. paved roadway
shoulders and/or open swale);
Storm drains located within curb to curb, and associated transverse portions
perpendicular to the roadway and adjoining portions longitudinal to the
roadway;
14 foot paved and painted median (or dual center left turn lane);
Traffic signals at intersections with state highways and other major arterials that
are also on the TUMF Network;
Pavement striping and roadway signing, as required;
6 foot wide concrete sidewalks and associated curb cuts for ADA access at
street crossings.
A cross-section of the Typical Roadway Standard is illustrated in Figure F-1.
Figure F-1. Typical Roadway Standard Cross-Section
It is recognized that the typical roadway standard is not appropriate in all potential
TUMF Network locations. Where appropriate, typical design standards could be
substituted with design elements such as open swale drainage and paved roadway
shoulders with no curbing that would typically cost less than the implementation of the
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-3
Typical Roadway Standard. Roadway improvements in excess of the Typical Roadway
Standard include, but are not limited to:
Portland concrete cement pavement or other aesthetic pavement types
(except at intersections);
Major rehabilitation or overlay of existing pavement in adjacent roadway lanes;
Raised barrier medians;
Parking lanes;
Roadway tapers outside the extents of the approved project
Sanitary sewage infrastructure;
Water systems
Dry utilities
Undergrounding infrastructure
Relocation of non-prior rights utilities
Storm Drain Systems in excess of draining the roadway
Landscaping;
Streetlighting;
Class I Bike Lanes (e.g. separate bicycle paths)
Environmental Permitting
Detection/Retention Basins outside of Street Right-of-Way
Agency Staff time in excess of 15% of Engineering
Agency Staff Time in excess of 15% of Construction
These improvements in excess of Typical Roadway Standards are not eligible for TUMF
funding and will be the responsibility of the local funding agency.
Unit cost estimates for the implementation of TUMF Network improvements were
developed based on the unit cost to accomplish the Typical Roadway Standard. Initial
unit cost estimates were developed as part of the original TUMF Nexus in 2002. These
original values were adjusted as part of the 2005 Nexus Update to reflect changes in
cost based on relevant indices. The unit cost estimates were fully revised as part of the
2009 Nexus Update to capture the full effects of the economic recession on the costs of
labor, materials and property acquisition. For the previous 2016 Nexus Update, the unit
costs were fully revised. The 2016 Nexus Update reflected the effects of the ongoing
recovery from the economic recession that has saw the costs of materials, labor and
land acquisition in California rebound from relative historical lows previously observed at
the time of the 2009 Nexus Update.
For the 2024 Nexus Update, the unit costs were again fully revised to generate entirely
new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction cost, labor cost
and land acquisition cost values for comparable projects within and adjacent to
Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed
as part of the 2024 Nexus Update to account for the unprecedented materials cost
increases, labor shortages and high rate of inflation generally attributable to a
combination of the disruption to global supply chains caused by the COVID-19
pandemic and additional tariffs on a range of products imported into the United States.
In December 2023, the unit cost values were validated utilizing Caltrans Contract Cost
Data and the resultant unit costs are noted in Exhibit F-2 and summarized in Table 4.1.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-4
For simplicity, the roadway unit cost was assumed to provide for the full depth
construction (including grading) of 16 feet of new pavement per lane (to
accommodate a minimum 12 foot lane and ancillary treatments). The unit cost was
assumed to include the following construction elements:
Sawcut of existing pavement
Removal of existing pavement
Roadway excavation and embankment
10” thick class 2 aggregate base
4.0” thick asphaltic concrete surface
Concrete curb, gutter and drainage improvements
Roadway unit costs were determined for each unique cost item. The source used to
determine the roadway unit costs as part of the 2024 Nexus Update are listed below.
Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021-2022
Projects within Riverside County and Adjacent Counties
Typical experience for local cities, Western Riverside County
Michael Baker international (MBI), Structural Group
MBI, ITS Group
Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022-2023
All data described above was initially obtained in October 2022 and refreshed and
validated in December 2023.
Right-of-way acquisition costs were determined based on the cost to acquire 18 feet of
right-of-way per lane of new roadway improvement. For urban and suburban land use
areas, the amount of right-of-way to be acquired as part of the TUMF program was
reduced by 75% to account for property already owned by a participating jurisdiction
through prior acquisition or dedication. Right-of-way unit costs were assumed to include
the following elements:
Land acquisition
Documentation and legal fees
Relocation and demolition costs and condemnation compensation
requirements
Utility relocation
Direct environmental mitigation
Right-of-way unit costs were determined based on a review of actual property sales
within the WRCOG region during the prior 18 month period. The task of determining the
valuation per square foot of right-of-way for different land uses was completed by Epic
Land Solutions, Inc.
A typical existing condition of each component type was used as a guideline for
quantity assessments.
Terrain 1: Level terrain with 0% profile grade. Construction cost is per lane mile.
Terrain 2: Rolling Terrain with 1.5 % profile grade. Construction cost is per lane mile.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-5
Terrain 3: Mountainous Terrain with 3% profile grade. Construction cost is per lane
mile.
Land Use 1, 2 and 3; ROW cost factor per lane mile, for Urban, Suburban and Rural
areas respectively.
Interchange 1: Complex New Interchange/Interchange Modification. Existing
complex interchange at I-15 & SR-91 was used as a guideline for quantity
assessments.
Interchange 2: New Interchange/Interchange Modification is assumed to be a
New Cloverleaf Interchange consisting of 4 (3 lane) direct ramps and 4 (2 lane)
loop ramps.
Interchange 3: Major Interchange Improvement is assumed to correspond to
adding 1 lane to each ramp on a cloverleaf Interchange.
Bridge: New Bridge cost. Construction cost is per linear foot per lane.
RRXing 1: New Rail Grade Crossing. Construction cost is per lane per crossing.
RRXing 2: Widening Existing Grade Crossing. Construction cost is per lane per
crossing.
ITS 1: Infrastructure for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on TUMF Network
roadway segments per route mile
The cost estimating methodology here is intended to provide a Present Value Cost
Estimate for the WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee based on year 2023 unit
prices. A more detailed description of cost categories is detailed below.
I. Roadway Items
Roadway Excavation:
A unit cost of $38.55 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract
Cost Data) is applied to account for the excavation quantities. Assuming proposed
profiles to be at 0% grade, the excavation values are estimated based on the
component type as follows:
Terrain 2 and 3: excavation for one lane (16 feet wide and 4 feet deep) is
assumed.
Imported Borrow:
The unit cost used for imported borrow is $20.47 per cubic yard (Source: Local
Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). Locations where imported borrow is
required are determined from aerial photos.
Terrain 2 and 3: Excavation for one lane (16 feet wide and 4 feet deep) is
assumed.
Interchanges 1, 2, and 3: Vertical clearance of 24.5 feet is used to calculate the
maximum amount of imported borrow at areas adjacent to an undercrossing.
RRXing 1 and 2: Vertical clearance of 31.5 feet and Bridge approach of 1,000
feet is used to determine the quantity of Imported borrow for this component
type.
Clearing and Grubbing:
The unit cost for clearing and grubbing is $12,100.00 per acre (Source: Local Projects
and Caltrans Contract Cost Data).
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-6
Terrain 1, 2 and 3: The area of clearing and grubbing is assumed to extend 16
feet for the addition of each new lane.
Interchange 1 and 2: The area of clearing and grubbing is assumed to extend 40
feet beyond the proposed outside edge of shoulder. The clearing and grubbing
width varies depending on the number of added lanes.
Interchange 3 and Intersection: The area of clearing and grubbing is assumed to
extend 16 feet for the addition of each lane.
Development of Water Supply:
A lump sum value is used to account for developing water supply. The lump sum
cost is estimated as 10% of the combined cost for roadway excavation and
imported borrow (Source: RCTC).
PCC Pavement:
The unit cost for PCC pavement is $354.83 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects
and Caltrans Contract Cost Data).
Terrain 1, 2 and 3: It is assumed that PCC is used at mainline shoulders. The PCC
shoulder pavement is assumed to be 4 inch thick and 4 feet wide.
Asphalt Concrete Type A:
It is assumed that Asphalt Concrete is used at mainline and where ramp and bridge
widening is required. A unit cost of $240.62 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects
and Caltrans Contract Cost Data) is used to account for asphalt concrete
quantities. The asphalt concrete overlay is assumed to be 4 inch thick.
Aggregate Base:
The unit cost for aggregate base is $73.54 per cubic yard (Source: Local Projects
and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). Aggregate base quantities are estimated by
means of calculating the areas of additional lanes. The aggregate base layer is
considered to be 10 inch thick. It is assumed that aggregate base is used over the
entire widening width below the PCC pavement and asphalt concrete layers.
Curb and Gutter:
The unit cost used for curb and gutter is $65.74 per linear foot (Source: Local Projects
and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). It is assumed that type A2-6 curb and gutter is
used on the entire length of travel way where required.
Project Drainage:
A lump sum value is used to account for project drainage cost of roadway
construction. The project drainage cost is estimated as 15% (Source: RCTC project
2007) of combined cost for earthwork and pavement structural section.
Traffic Signals:
The costs for traffic signals are calculated per ramp termini intersection. The unit cost
used for traffic signals is $531,086 (Source: Caltrans Contract Cost Data and typical
experience, Western Riverside County) per intersection. Traffic signals costs are
considered only at the Intersection (Network-to-Network) upgrade.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-7
Striping:
The unit cost used for Striping is $2.58 per linear foot (Source: Local Projects and
Caltrans Contract Cost Data). It is assumed that two lines of thermo-plastic striping
are required for every lane addition.
Marking:
The unit cost used for marking is $7.31 per square foot (Source: Local Projects and
Caltrans Contract Cost Data).
Terrains 1, 2 and 3: It is assumed that there are 8 arrow markers, 2 Stop sign
markers and 4 Bike sign markers.
Interchanges 1, 2, and 3: It is assumed that there are 2 Type I arrows on each on
ramp, and 2 Type IV (L) arrows on each off ramp.
Intersection (network to network) upgrade: It is assumed that there are 2 right
turn arrows and two right lane drop arrows for each lane modification for the
interchange upgrade
Pavement Marker:
Type G one-way clear retroreflective pavement markers (Spacing @ 48 feet) were
assumed for Terrain 1, 2 and 3 component types only. The unit cost used for
pavement marker is $5.06 each (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost
Data).
Signage:
The signage unit cost accounts for the costs of one-post signs and two-post signs.
The unit cost used for one-post signs and two-post signs are $367.69 and $1,211.58
each, respectively (Source: Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data). The
post sign quantities assumed for each component type is summarized below.
Sign Type Terrain 1, 2 & 3 Interchange Intersection 1 2 3
One Post Signs 33 14 36 20 3
Two Post Signs - 4 4 4 0
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS):
The unit cost used for ITS is $686,338.50 per route mile (Source: Local Projects and MBI
ITS Group). It is assumed that there is no existing ITS infrastructure (with the exception
of isolated ITS devices) within the TUMF Network roadway segments and essential ITS
infrastructure is furnished and installed. This essential ITS infrastructure includes
ethernet switch, fiber jumper, fiber distribution unit, splice enclosure, pull box, new
cabinet with foundation, 144 strand single-mode fiber optic (SMFO) cable and 3”
conduits.
Minor Items, Roadway Mobilization, and Roadway Additions:
A lump sum value is used to account for minor items, roadway mobilization and
roadway additions as described below. These lump sum values are recommended
based on provisions in Project Development Procedure Manual (PDPM) and the
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-8
date from individual sources presented in the introduction of this report (Source:
RCTC)
Items Unit Cost
Minor Items 10% of earthwork, pavement structure, drainage,
specialty items and traffic items.
Roadway
Mobilization
10% of earthwork, pavement structure, drainage,
specialty items, traffic items and minor items.
Roadway Additions 10% of earthwork, pavement structure, drainage,
specialty items, traffic items and minor items.
II. Structure Items
New Bridge:
New interchanges account for construction of a new bridge. The unit cost for a new
travel way bridge construction and RRXings1 and 2 (New and Widening of Rail
Grade Crossings) is $400.00 per square foot (Source: MBI Structural group). The width
of a new bridge is assumed to be 82 feet (4 lanes x 12ft + 10ft shoulder x 2 + 14ft
median).
Bridge Widening:
Bridge widenings account for the widening of existing bridges. The unit cost is
$500.00 per square foot (Source: MBI Structural group). The width of a bridge
widening is assumed to be: 2 lanes x 12ft + 10ft shoulder. The width of an arterial
crossing over rail road is assumed to be 16 feet (1 lane x 12ft + 4ft shoulder).
Structural Mobilization:
The cost for structural mobilization is estimated as 10% of total structure item cost
(Source: Typical experience).
III. Right of Way Items
The right of way unit cost varies with land use designation. The unit cost for ROW was
developed by Epic Land Solutions, Inc. based on a review of actual property sales
within the WRCOG region during the prior 18 month period. The area of right of way
acquisition for the travel way is calculated per additional lane mile, assuming the
width of the right-of-way required to be 18 feet per lane (to accommodate a 12
foot roadway lane, shoulders and ancillary amenities, like storm water drainage).
The right of way acquisition for RRXings1 and 2 is calculated based on ROW
acquisition for bridge approaches.
Property costs per square foot are derived by reviewing a large sample of recently
sold land and improved properties within the greater Riverside area. The properties
reviewed are identified specifically from completed semi large to very large
infrastructure projects and upcoming projects with preferred alternatives and/or
approved environmental reports. For the purposes of the 2022 Nexus Study update,
an overall sample of approximately 2,700 properties was used.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-9
The properties were designated as: urban areas (generally considered downtown,
or very close to downtown in the larger cities - predominantly Corona and Riverside,
with a few parcels in Temecula and Moreno Valley); suburban (primarily considered
the greater areas of Hemet, Perris, San Jacinto, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore, outer
portions of Riverside / Corona, Temecula, Murrieta, Calimesa, Eastvale, Norco, and
other cities of relative size and location as those previously mentioned); and rural
(considered the exurban areas between Corona / Lake Elsinore and Perris along the
SR-74/79, Lake Matthews, between Wildomar and Murrieta, Temecula and Perris
and other similar areas) to correspond with the land use classifications used for cost
estimating purposes in the TUMF program. The properties were also determined to
be partial or full property takes to determine the relative percentage of each in
order to appropriately weight the average cost per square foot of each type of
property. Specialty cost percentages as a share of total acquisition costs (i.e.
relocation and demolition) were also derived from actual costs based on a sample
of the Inland Empire projects that Epic Land Solutions, Inc. was directly involved in
and therefore able to obtain reliable data.
The result is an estimated average cost per square foot for ROW acquisition by land
use classification which is then multiplied by the number of square feet per lane mile
to obtain the required ROW to accomplish the TUMF typical cross section. The ROW
requirement is then reduced by a factor of 75% for urban and suburban areas
based on the collective recommendation of the PWC during the development of
the initial program cost estimation methodology to reflect the assumption that a
majority of the proposed TUMF facilities in these areas already exist and/or have a
substantial portion of the necessary right-of-way already owned by or dedicated to
the responsible jurisdiction. As a result, the TUMF program only includes the
estimated cost for 25% of the right-of-way that could potentially be required to
accomplish the TUMF cross sections for the conceptual improvement projects
identified as part of the program in urban and suburban areas.
Maintenance of Traffic:
A lump sum value is used to account for maintenance of traffic cost of roadway
construction. The project maintenance of traffic cost is estimated as 5% (Source:
RCTC) of the total project cost.
The consolidated unit cost values include typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of
the eligible improvement element. These elements include new roadways, bridge
improvements, interchange improvements and railroad grade separation construction
costs, and right of way acquisition.
The consolidated unit costs as developed for the 2024 Nexus Update are summarized in
Exhibit F-1. Exhibit F-2 provides a summary of the unit costs for the various roadway and
structures construction elements defined. Exhibit F-3 provides a summary of the unit
costs for the various right of way categories. Exhibit F-4 provides worksheets showing
the detailed unit cost calculation for each TUMF unit cost category related to roadway
and structures construction, and right of way acquisition.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-10
The unit cost assumptions were subsequently applied to the TUMF Network
improvements identified to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of
future new development. The resultant cost value was tabulated for each unique
segment of the network, by improvement type. A separate cost estimate was
generated for regional transit improvements based on information provided by RTA and
added to the TUMF Network Cost Estimate table.
Supplemental categories have been added to the cost assumptions to better
delineate the costs associated with planning and engineering a project,
accommodating contingencies, mitigating the cumulate multi-species habitat impacts
of TUMF arterial highway improvements in accordance with the adopted Riverside
County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and administering the TUMF
program.
Soft Costs
The TUMF program provides for planning, engineering and contingency costs
(collectively referred to as soft costs) for eligible projects to be reimbursed through the
program. As indicated in Table 4.1, planning costs are considered to include those
costs associated with planning, preliminary engineering and environmental assessment
of the proposed project, with the eligible amount being 10% of the estimated TUMF
eligible construction cost only. Engineering costs are considered to include project
study report, design, permitting and construction oversight costs based on 25% of the
estimated eligible construction cost only. Contingency is provided based on 10% of the
total estimated eligible facility cost.
Soft costs include all reasonable required planning, environmental clearance and
mitigation, right-of-way documentation, engineering design, plan, specification and
estimate preparation and construction management and oversight costs necessary to
accomplish the project. The estimated soft cost factors for planning, engineering and
contingency were initially established in 2002 by the WRCOG Public Works Committee,
which was responsible for the development of the initial TUMF Nexus Study. The
percentage multipliers were established by consensus of the PWC based on the
collective experience of members in delivering similar public highway projects. A
review of various data sources indicates the cost factors are generally consistent with
industry guidance for conceptual cost estimation purposes. The City of Los Angeles,
Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering California Multi-Agency CIP
Benchmarking Study (December 2016) indicates that combined design and
construction management costs for roadway projects represent, on average, 50% of
the total cost of construction14. Similarly, the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Practical Guide for Estimating (December 2011)
also cites the following average multipliers for a range of planning and engineering
activities based on national research as a basis for conceptual cost estimation:
14 City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering California Multi-
Agency CIP Benchmarking Study (December 2016), Table 3-6 Average Project Delivery Costs by
Project Type (% of TCC) (Full Range of TCC).
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-11
Preliminary Engineering Costs (including survey/data collection, design,
environmental, utilities and contract administration) – 10% to 25% of total
construction cost15
Construction Engineering – 10% to 26% of total construction costs 16
Furthermore, the contingency rate utilized in the TUMF program is significantly less than
the industry norm for conceptual cost estimation purposes. Specifically, Caltrans
Project Development Procedures Manual (July 2021) advocates for contingency rates
of 30% to 50% of total costs to be used at the project feasibility (conceptual planning)
phase of project development17, with contingency rates reduced to 10% for preliminary
engineers cost estimates completed during project design18.
MSHCP
Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on
June 17, 2003, states that “each new transportation project will contribute to Plan
implementation. Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% - 5% of their
construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts.” This provision is reiterated in the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study
Update Final Report (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020) section “6. RCA
Non-Fee Revenues” which states “The MSHCP forecast an array of revenue sources, in
addition to fee revenue, supporting the conservation program. These sources were
anticipated to total about 44 percent of the revenue for the program, including:
• Transportation funding – includes the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through
2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fees (TUMF) charged on new development.” Table 23 Annual Non-Fee
Revenue Projection in this section indicates that an average of $950,000 in MSHCP
revenue was derived annually from TUMF during the three years from FY16/17- 18/19
reflecting a TUMF contribution at 5% of construction costs consistent with the MSHCP as
adopted in 2003. To clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP,
the TUMF program will continue to incorporate a cost element to account for the
required MSHCP contribution to mitigate the multi-species habitat impacts of
constructing TUMF projects.
15 AASHTO Technical Committee on Cost Estimating (TCCE) AASHTO Practical Guide for
Estimating (December 2011), Table 2.4. Preliminary Engineering Costs’ Average Percentage
Ranges (% of Construction).
16 AASHTO Technical Committee on Cost Estimating (TCCE) AASHTO Practical Guide for
Estimating (December 2011), Section 2.2.3.2.3 Construction Engineering, “highway improvement
projects in an urban environment”.
17 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Design Project Development
Procedures Manual (July 2021), Chapter 20 – Project Development Cost Estimates, Section 2 –
Project Planning Cost Estimates, Article 2 Project Feasibility Cost Estimate, Contingencies.
18 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Design Project Development
Procedures Manual (July 2021), Chapter 20 – Project Development Cost Estimates, Section 3 –
Project Design Cost Estimates, Article 4 Preliminary Engineer’s Cost Estimate, Contingencies.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-12
An amount equal to 5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges
and railroad grade separations will continue to be specifically included as part of TUMF
program with revenues to be provided to the Western Riverside County Regional
Conservation Authority (RCA) for the acquisition of land identified in the MSHCP. The
relevant sections of the MSHCP document and the 2020 MSHCP Nexus Report are
included in this Appendix as Exhibits F-5 and F-6, respectively.
Similarly, an amount of 4% of the total TUMF eligible network cost is included as part of
the TUMF program with revenues to be utilized by WRCOG to cover the direct costs to
administer the program. The costs incurred by WRCOG include direct salary, fringe
benefit and overhead costs for WRCOG staff assigned to administer the program and
support participating jurisdictions, and costs for consultant, legal and auditing services
to support the implementation of the TUMF program.
Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF
network cost estimate, including a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost
assumptions and the current revised unit cost assumptions developed as part of the
2009 Update of the TUMF Nexus Study. Cost estimates are provided in year of original
values as indicated.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT F-1
2024 TUMF Nexus Update - Arterial Highway Cost Assumptions:
Component
Type
Cost Assumptions
as published
October 18, 2002
Cost Assumption per
2009 Nexus Update
October 5, 2009
Cost Assumptions per
2016 Update
Cost Assumptions per
2024 Update Description
Terrain 1 $550,000.00 $628,000.00 $692,000.00 $1,132,000 Construction cost per lane mile - level terrain
Terrain 2 $850,000.00 $761,000.00 $878,000.00 $1,740,000 Construction cost per lane mile - rolling terrain
Terrain 3 $1,150,000.00 $895,000.00 $1,064,000.00 $2,350,000 Construction cost per lane mile - mountainous terrain
Landuse 1 $900,000.00 $1,682,000.00 $2,509,000.00 $7,830,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - urban areas
Landuse 2 $420,000.00 $803,000.00 $2,263,000.00 $5,440,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - suburban areas
Landuse 3 $240,000.00 $237,000.00 $287,000.00 $490,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - rural areas
Interchange 1 n/a $43,780,000.00 $50,032,000.00 $84,190,000 Complex new interchange/interchange modification cost
Interchange 2 $20,000,000.00 $22,280,000.00 $25,558,000.00 $43,490,000 New interchange/interchange modification total cost
Interchange 3 $10,000,000.00 $10,890,000.00 $12,343,000.00 $22,550,000 Major interchange improvement total cost
Bridge 1 $2,000.00 $2,880.00 $3,180.00 $4,800 Bridge total cost per lane per linear foot
RRXing 1 $4,500,000.00 $4,550,000.00 $6,376,000.00 $18,200,000 New Rail Grade Crossing per lane mile
RRXing 2 $2,250,000.00 $2,120,000.00 $2,733,000.00 $6,900,000 Existing Rail Grade Crossing per lane mile
ITS n/a n/a n/a $686,400 Infrastructure for ITS of Network roadway segments per route mile
Planning 10%10%10%10%Planning, preliminary engineering and environmental assessment costs based on construction cost only
Engineering 25%25%25%25%Project study report, design, permitting and construction oversight costs based on construction cost only
Contingency 10%10%10%10%Contingency costs, including TUMF program administration based on total segment cost
Administration 3%4%4%TUMF program administration based on total TUMF eligible network cost
MSHCP 5%5%5%TUMF component of MSHCP based on total TUMF eligible construction cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
I. Roadway Items Unit Notes
Section 1: Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Travel way cubic yard $38.55 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 190101
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 198010
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 170105
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost Same as RCTC
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
PCC cubic yard $354.83 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 401050
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 390132
Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane)cubic yard $73.54 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 260203
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022/2023 - ITEM 731504
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 Same as RCTC
Section 4: Specialty Items
Retaining Walls square foot $90.00 Source: MBI structural group
Ramp Realignment each
Water Quality and Erosion Control lump sum 3% of sections 1 to 3 Same as RCTC
Environmental Mitigation lump sum 3% of sections 1 to 3 Same as RCTC
Section 5: Traffic Items
Lighting each $7,500 Source: RCTC
Traffic Signals each $531,086 Typical for public agency projects in Western Riverside County and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022/2023
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction)linear foot $2.58 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 846007
Marking - Thermo plastic cross walks & pavement marking square foot $7.31 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 840516
Pavement Marker Retroreflective each $5.06 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022/2023 - ITEM 810230
Signage - 1 Post each $367.69 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2021/2022 - ITEM 820840
Signage - 2 Post each $1,211.58 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and Caltrans Contract Cost Data 2022/2023 - ITEM 820850
Infrastructure for ITS of Network roadway segments route mile $686,383.00 Source: Ave unit costs from Local Projects and MBI ITS Team - Assumptions: 3 Traffic Signals per route mile
Section 6: Minor Items lump sum 10% of sections 1 to 5 Same as RCTC
Section 7: Roadway Mobilization lump sum 10% of sections 1 to 6 Same as RCTC
Section 8:Roadway Additions lump sum 10% of sections 1 to 6 Same as RCTC
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Major New Interchange - 2 Lane New Bridge square foot $400.00 Interchange/Interchange, Cloverleaf Interchange - Cost provided by MBI Structural Group
New Interchange - 2 Lane New Bridge square foot $400.00 Interchange/Interchange, Diamond Interchange - Cost provided by MBI Structural Group
Major Interchange Improvement - 2 Lane Bridge Widening square foot $500.00 Interchange/Interchange, Cloverleaf Interchange - Cost provided by MBI Structural Group
Bridge square foot $400.00 Cost provided by MBI Structural Group
Structure Mobilization lump sum 10% of structure cost Typical for public agency projects in Western Riverside County
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $330 Provided by Epic Land Solutions, Inc.
Suburban
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $229 Provided by Epic Land Solutions, Inc.
Rural
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $5 Provided by Epic Land Solutions, Inc.
Utility Relocation lump sum 10% of ROW Includes mobilization for one occurrence per lane mile
Total Items I + II + III Same as RCTC
Maintenance of Traffic lump sum 5% of total items Same as RCTC
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
EXHIBIT F-2
Unit Cost
2024 Nexus Update Master Unit Cost Summary
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
URBAN Avg. $ per SF % of Total Area Weighted Cost
Commercial
Part Take $22 1.4%$0.30
Full Take $597 7.9%$47.40
9.3%
Industrial
Part Take $29 0.5%$0.15
Full Take $267 6.0%$16.02
6.5%
Single Family Residential
Part Take $10 16.8%$1.68
Full Take $348 66.2%$230.24
83.0%
Multi Family Residential
Part Take $27 0.3%$0.07
Full Take $307 0.8%$2.52
1.1%
Average Unit Price per Square Foot:$298.38
Residential & Non-Res. Relocation (7.5%):$22.38
Demolition (3%)$8.95
Urban Unit Cost per Square Foot:$329.71
SUBURBAN Avg. $ per SF % of Total Area Weighted Share
Commercial
Part Take $17 5.1%$0.87
Full Take $425 14.6%$62.01
19.7%
Industrial
Part Take $20 0.0288 $0.58
Full Take $227 0.08645 $19.62
11.5%
Single Family Residential
Part Take $4 0.24 $0.96
Full Take $292 0.3866 $112.89
62.7%
Multi Family Residential
Part Take $14 0.0284 $0.40
Full Take $313 0.0321 $10.05
6.1%
Average Unit Price per Square Foot:$207.37
Residential & Non-Res. Relocation (7.5%):$15.55
Demolition (3%)$6.22
Suburban Unit Cost per Square Foot:$229.14
RURAL $ per SF
Range of Value of Rural Vacant land sold within last year:$0.07 - $31.48
Average price per square foot of rural land:$4.66
Miscellaneous improvements (10%):$0.46
Rural Unit Cost per Square Foot:$5.12
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
2024 Nexus Update Master Property Cost Summary
EXHIBIT F-3
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
Section 1: Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Travel way cubic yard $38.55 0.00 $0
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 0.00 $0
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 1.94 $23,467
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $0
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Sidewalk
PCC cubic yard $354.83 258.13 $91,593
Travel way
Asphalt Concrete Type A cubic yard $240.62 1,032.53 $248,448
Aggregate Base cubic yard $73.54 2,596.98 $190,982
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 5,280.00 $347,107
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $135,240
Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction)linear foot $2.58 10,560.00 $27,245
Marking square foot $7.31 211.50 $1,546
Pavement Marker (Type G One-way Clear Retroreflective)each $5.06 110.00 $557
Signage - 1 Post (Mainline)each $367.69 33.00 $12,134
Total Items I $1,078,318
Maintenance of Traffic 5% of total items 1.00 $53,916
Project Cost / Lane mile $1,132,234
EXHIBIT F-4
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 1 - Level Terrain
Unit Cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
Section 1: Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Travel way cubic yard $38.55 7,739.26 $298,348
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 7,739.26 $158,423
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 1.94 $23,467
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $45,677
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Sidewalk
PCC cubic yard $354.83 258.13 $91,593
Travel way
Asphalt Concrete Type A cubic yard $240.62 1,032.53 $248,448
Aggregate Base cubic yard $73.54 2,596.98 $190,982
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 5,280.00 $347,107
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $210,607
Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction)linear foot $2.58 10,560.00 $27,245
Marking square foot $7.31 211.50 $1,546
Pavement Marker (Type G One-way Clear Retroreflective)each $5.06 110.00 $557
Signage - 1 Post (Mainline)each $367.69 33.00 $12,134
Total Items I $1,656,133
Maintenance of Traffic 5% of total items 1.00 $82,807
Project Cost / Lane mile $1,738,940
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 2 - Rolling Terrain
Unit Cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
Section 1: Earthwork
Roadway Excavation
Travel way cubic yard $38.55 15,478.52 $596,697
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 15,478.52 $316,845
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 1.94 $23,467
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $91,354
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Sidewalk
PCC cubic yard $354.83 258.13 $91,593
Travel way
Asphalt Concrete Type A cubic yard $240.62 1,032.53 $248,448
Aggregate Base cubic yard $73.54 2,596.98 $190,982
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 5,280.00 $347,107
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $285,974
Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction)linear foot $2.58 10,560.00 $27,245
Marking square foot $7.31 211.50 $1,546
Pavement Marker (Type G One-way Clear Retroreflective)each $5.06 110.00 $557
Signage - 1 Post (Mainline)each $367.69 33.00 $12,134
Total Items I $2,233,949
Maintenance of Traffic 5% of total items 1.00 $111,697
Project Cost / Lane mile $2,345,646
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Terrain 3 - Mountainous Terrain
Unit Cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Unit Unit Cost Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
Travel Way square foot $329.71 95,040.00 $31,335,419
Project Cost / Lane mile 25%$7,833,855
Unit Unit Cost Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Suburban
Travel Way square foot $229.14 95,040.00 $21,777,847
Project Cost / Lane mile 25%$5,444,462
I. Roadway Items Unit Unit Cost Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Rural
Travel Way square foot $5.12 95,040.00 $486,605
Project Cost / Lane mile $486,605
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
Landuse 3 - ROW Rural areas
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Landuse 1 - ROW Urban areas
Landuse 2 - ROW Suburban Areas
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 700,000.00 $14,329,000
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 51.93 $628,349
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $1,432,900
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 13,500.00 $3,248,370
Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane)cubic yard $73.54 34,000.00 $2,500,360
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 31,000.00 $2,037,940
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $3,626,538
Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction)linear foot $2.58 84,250.00 $217,365
Marking square foot $7.31 368.00 $2,690
Signage - 1 Post each $367.69 14.00 $5,148
Signage - 2 Post each $1,211.58 4.00 $4,846
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Complex New Interchange - 2 Lane New Bridge square foot $400.00 140,400.00 $56,160,000
Total Items I + II + III $84,193,506
Total Project Cost / lane mile $84,193,506
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Interchange 1 - Complex New Interchange/Interchange Modification
Unit Cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 400,000.00 $8,188,000
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 25.12 $304,000
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $818,800
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 7,040.00 $1,693,965
Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane)cubic yard $73.54 17,706.67 $1,302,148
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 16,000.00 $1,051,840
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $2,003,813
Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction)linear foot $2.58 43,200.00 $111,456
Marking square foot $7.31 368.00 $2,690
Signage - 1 Post each $367.69 36.00 $13,237
Signage - 2 Post each $1,211.58 4.00 $4,846
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
New Interchange - 2 Lane New Bridge square foot $400.00 70,000.00 $28,000,000
Total Items I + II + III $43,494,795
Total Project Cost / lane mile $43,494,795
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Interchange 2 - New Interchange/Interchange Modification
Unit Cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 180,000.00 $3,684,600
Clearing & Grubbing
Travel way acre $12,100.00 3.97 $48,000
Develop Water Supply lump sum 10% of Excavation and Borrow Cost 1.00 $368,460
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 3,128.89 $752,873
Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane)cubic yard $73.54 7,869.63 $578,733
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 16,000.00 $1,051,840
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $972,676
Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction)linear foot $2.58 32,000.00 $82,560
Marking square foot $7.31 184.00 $1,345
Signage - 1 Post each $367.69 20.00 $7,354
Signage - 2 Post each $1,211.58 4.00 $4,846
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Major Interchange Improvement - 2 Lane Bridge Widening square foot $500.00 30,000.00 $15,000,000
Total Items I + II + III $22,553,287
Total Project Cost / lane mile $22,553,287
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Interchange 3 - Major Interchange Improvement
Unit Cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
Bridge square foot $400.00 12.00 $4,800
Total Items I + II + III $4,800
Total Project Cost / lane mile $4,800
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Bridge 1 - New Bridge Cost
Unit Cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 17,931.03 $367,048
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 782.22 $188,218
Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane)cubic yard $73.54 1,967.41 $144,683
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 1,180.00 $77,573
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $116,628
Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction)linear foot $2.58 1,180.00 $3,044
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Bridge square foot $400.00 2,880.00 $1,152,000
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $329.71 49,000.00 $16,155,790
Total Items I + II + III $18,204,986
Total Project Cost / lane mile $18,204,986
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
RRXing 1 - New Rail Grade Crossing
Unit Cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / lane mile Cost / lane mile
Section 1: Earthwork
Imported Borrow
Travel way cubic yard $20.47 17.78 $364
Section 2: Pavement Structural Section
Asphalt Concrete Type A (Including Bike Lane) cubic yard $240.62 782.22 $188,218
Aggregate Base (Including Bike Lane)cubic yard $73.54 1,967.41 $144,683
Curb and Gutter linear foot $65.74 1,180.00 $77,573
Section 3: Drainage
Project Drainage lump sum 15% of Sections 1 and 2 1.00 $61,626
Section 5: Traffic Items
Striping - Thermo plastic (1 GP Lane, per direction)linear foot $2.58 1,180.00 $3,044
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
Bridge square foot $400.00 2,880.00 $1,152,000
III. RIGHT OF WAY ITEMS
Urban
Travel Way - Additional lane square foot $329.71 16,000.00 $5,275,360
Total Items I + II + III $6,902,869
Total Project Cost / lane mile $6,902,869
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
RRXing 2 - Widen Existing Rail Grade Crossing
Unit Cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
I. ROADWAY ITEMS Unit Quantity / route mile Cost / route mile
Infrastructure for ITS of Network roadway segments route mile $686,383.00 1.00 $686,383
Total Items I + II + III $686,383
Total Project Cost / route mile $686,383
EXHIBIT F-4 (Continued)
WRCOG Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
Cost Assumption Estimate - 2024 Nexus Update
Infrastructure for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) on TUMF Network Roadway Segments
Unit Cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-13
EXHIBIT F-5
Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP)
adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003
Section 8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of Reserve Assembly and Management
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-14
8.5 LOCAL FUNDING PROGRAM
The following local funding plan describes the local commitment for funding Reserve Assembly,
Management, and Monitoring.
The local funding program includes funding from a variety of sources, including but not limited to,
regional funding resulting from the importation of waste into landfills in Riverside County,
mitigation for regional public infrastructure projects, mitigation for private infrastructure projects,
mitigation for private Development, funds generated by local or regional incentive programs that
encourage compact growth and the creation of transit-oriented communities, and dedications of lands
in conjunction with local approval of private development projects.
The local funding program will fund the local portion of:
!Land acquisition
!Management
!Monitoring
!Adaptive Management
!Plan administration
8.5.1 Funding Sources
Local funding sources include funding from both public and private developers and regional entities
in an effort to spread the financial burden of the MSHCP over a broad base. The mix of funding
sources provides an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP. In
addition to equitably distributing mitigation for local projects, utilizing a mixture of funding sources
will help ensure the long-term viability of the local funding program because a temporary decline
in funding from one source may be offset by increases from another. The proposed local funding
sources are described below and include:
!Local Development Mitigation Fees
!Density Bonus Fees
!Regional Infrastructure Project Contribution
!Landfill Tipping Fees
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-15
!Other Potential New Revenue Sources
’Local Development Mitigation Fees
New Development affects the environment directly through construction activity and cumulatively
through population bases that result from Development. Government Code Section 66000 et seq.
allows cities and counties to charge new Development for the costs of mitigating the impacts of new
Development. The Cities and County will implement a Development Mitigation Fee pursuant to the
MSHCP; this fee will be one of the primary sources of funding the implementation of the MSHCP.
The fee ordinance adopted by the Cities and the County will provide for an annual CPI adjustment
based upon the Consumer Price Index for “All Urban Consumers” in the Los Angeles-Anaheim-
Riverside Area, measured as of the month of December in the calendar year which ends in the
previous Fiscal Year. There will also be a provision for the fee to be reevaluated and revised should
it be found to insufficiently cover mitigation of new Development. A fee of approximately $1,500
per residential unit (or an equivalent fee per acre) and $4,800 per acre of commercial or industrial
Development was used in the revenue projection shown in Appendix B-05 of this document. The
projected revenues from the Development Mitigation Fee are anticipated to be approximately $540
million over the next 25 years. A nexus study is required to demonstrate that the proposed fee is
proportionate to the impacts of the new Development.
’Density Bonus Fees
The New Riverside County General Plan creates a number of incentive plans that have the potential
both to further the goals of the County’s General Plan and to facilitate the implementation of the
MSHCP. Section 8.4.2 above discusses the use of the Rural Incentive Program to aid in the
Conservation of lands through non-acquisition means. An additional component of the Incentive
Program enables developers to acquire the right to develop at an additional 25% increase in density
by providing enhancements to their projects and by paying a “Density Bonus Fee.” The fee is
anticipated to be $3,000 – $5,000 per additional unit. This program offers a significant incentive to
developers when compared with the typical cost of creating a new buildable lot.
The Density Bonus program is new to Riverside County, and it is, therefore, difficult to project
annual revenues. The Local Funding Program assumes that between 10% and 20% of the residential
units built in the unincorporated County area will participate in the incentive program and that only
50% of the revenues of the program will be committed to the MSHCP, with the remaining portion
staying in the local community in which the additional units are located to provide additional
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-16
amenities that will help offset the greater density. Of the 330,000 units projected to be built over the
next 25 years, 10% (or 33,000 units) are assumed to be built utilizing the Density Bonus Fee
resulting in $132,000,000 in revenues of which 50% (or $66,000,000) will be allocated to the
MSHCP.
’Regional Infrastructure Project Contribution
Regional infrastructure projects directly affect the environment not only through the effect they have
on species and their Habitats, but also by facilitating continued new Development. It is appropriate,
therefore, for regional infrastructure projects to contribute to Plan implementation . Four general
categories of infrastructure projects have been identified:
!Transportation Infrastructure
!Regional Utility Projects
!Local Public Capital Construction Projects
!Regional Flood Control Projects
Transportation Infrastructure
The RCIP has identified the need for approximately $12 billion in new transportation infrastructure
to support the Development proposed for the next 25 years. Each new transportation project will
contribute to Plan implementation . Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% – 5% of their
construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts. The local funding program anticipates that
more than one-half of the $12 billion cost of contribution to acquisition of Additional Reserve Lands
will be funded locally and will result in approximately $371 million in contribution over the next 25
years as discussed below.
<Riverside County’s ½ cent sales tax for Transportation
In 1988, Riverside County voters approved a measure to increase local sales tax by ½ cent to fund
new transportation projects (Measure A). The sales tax measure is due to be reauthorized in 2002.
Under the reauthorization, $121 million will be allocated as local contribution under the MSHCP.
(For further information on the sales tax measure, see Section 13.5 of the MSHCP Implementing
Agreement and Appendix B-07 of this document).
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-17
Regional Utility Projects
As Riverside County’s population doubles over the next 25 years, new regional utility infrastructure
will be required. Since the utilities are not Permittees under the MSHCP, they may choose to
mitigate under the Plan or seek their own regulatory permits. In either case, their mitigation will be
focused on the objectives of the MSHCP and will contribute to the local implementation funding.
No estimate of the number of projects or the scope or costs is available at this time; consequently,
no estimate of mitigation funding has been made. The Permittees expect that regional utility projects
will contribute to the implementation of the MSHCP and provide an additional contingency should
other revenue sources not generate the projected levels of funding or should implementation costs
be higher than projected.
Local Public Capital Construction Projects
Local public capital construction projects may include construction of new schools, universities, City
or County administrative facilities, jails, courts, juvenile facilities, parks, libraries, or other facilities
that serve the public. These projects will be mitigated under the MSHCP and will utilize a per acre
mitigation fee based on the fee then in place for private, commercial and industrial Development.
No attempt has been made to estimate the number or magnitude of these projects. The Permittees
expect that local pubic construction projects will contribute to the implementation of the MSHCP
and provide an additional contingency should other revenue sources not generate the projected levels
of funding or should implementation costs be higher than projected.
Regional Flood Control Projects
Flood control projects will receive coverage under the MSHCP for both new capital construction and
for the maintenance of existing and new facilities. Preliminary estimates from the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District indicate that they will likely budget approximately
$15 M in projects annually. Based on using 3% of capital costs, the District would be expected to
contribute approximately $450,000 to $750,000 annually to MSHCP implementation. Since many
flood control projects serve existing developed communities and therefore have less impacts than
projects adding capacity to serve new Development and may provide some conservation value
especially in terms of Constrained Linkages, the District’s contributions may average something
below the 5% level on average.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-18
’Landfill Tipping Fees
Riverside County has utilized revenues from public and private landfills in Riverside County t o
generate funding for conservation and open space projects for over a decade. In 1990, the County
utilized $1 per ton tipping fee assessed all waste deposited in County landfills to fund the acquisition
of the Santa Rosa Plateau and approximately $260,000 annually to fund the operation of the County
Park and Open Space Districts. More recently, the County has negotiated agreements with two
private landfills in the County to commit $1 per ton on all waste imported from outside Riverside
County to Conservation within Riverside County.
El Sobrante Landfill
This privately owned landfill was permitted to expand its capacity to 10,000 tons per day in 2001.
In approving t he landfill expansion, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors authorized fifty
cents per ton of the County’s portion of the revenue from the landfill expansion to be applied to
Conservation in addition to the $1 per ton that was committed under the landfill agreement. The
projection of the annual tonnage and revenue for Conservation included in Appendix B-09 of this
document reflects the $1.5 per ton commitment to Conservation. Over the life of the landfill, 60
million tons of imported waste are allowed. Sixty million tons at $1.5 per ton will generate $90
million for Conservation. The Cash Flow Analysis in Appendix B-10 of this document reflects the
annual revenues from the El Sobrante Landfill.
County Landfills
The County Board of Supervisors, beginning in 1990, authorized $1 per ton for all in-county waste
deposited in County landfills to go toward habitat and open space Conservation. After adjusting for
the debt service on the Santa Rosa Plateau acquisition and an annual commitment to the Park and
Open Space District, there is a projected annual balance of $400,000 that can be applied to additional
Conservation under the MSHCP. Appendix B-09 of this document includes a projection of tonnage
from in-County waste at County landfills. The Cash Flow Analysis in Appendix B-10 of this
document reflects the annual revenues from the County landfills. Over the next 25 years, County
landfills will contribute approximately $10 million to the implementation of the MSHCP.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-19
Eagle Mountain
In 1997, the County approved the use of the old Kaiser mine at Eagle Mountain in eastern Riverside
County as a regional landfill to serve primarily Los Angeles County. Subsequently, the Los Angeles
County Sanitation District has acquired the rights to the Eagle Mountain Landfill and intends to
begin operation of the landfill within the next decade. At this time, litigation is still pending that
could prohibit the development of the landfill. The Development Agreement with the County would
require the payment of $1 per ton for Conservation if the landfill is developed. Conservation needs
in the Coachella Valley would have first priority o ver the revenues from the Eagle Mountain
Landfill; however, some portion of the revenues would be available to support Conservation needs
in Western Riverside County. The Permittees expect that the Eagle Mountain Landfill will provide
funding to support implementation of the MSHCP over the life of the MSHCP. However, no
revenue from the Eagle Mountain Landfill has been projected in the funding program at this time.
These potential revenues provide a contingency should other revenue sources not generate the
projected levels of funding or should implementation costs be higher than projected.
’Potential New Revenue Sources
The County and Cities may levy assessments to pay for services that directly benefit the property on
which the fee is levied. Under current law, a local election may be required to initially levy the
assessment or to confirm the assessment if a protest is filed. No such assessments are currently
projected for the MSHCP. As the MSHCP Conservation Area is developed, however, its value as
open space and for recreation opportunities may lend itself to a local funding program for ongoing
management and enhancement. In more urban areas, which Western Riverside County will be in
25 years, local voters routinely approve such funding programs.
Other revenue opportunities may be realized over the next 25 years. The County, Cities, and RCA
will explore new revenue sources to support the acquisition of the MSHCP Conservation Area and
its long-term management and enhancement. A goal of any new fee would be to spread a portion
of the costs for the MSHCP across as broad a regional base as possible.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
8.0 MSHCP Funding/Financing of
Reserve Assembly and Management
VOLUME I SECTION 8 June 17, 2003
FINAL MSHCP 8-20
TABLE 8-5
LOCAL PUBLIC/REGIONAL FUNDING SOURCES
Source Anticipated $ Range Requirements to Implement Responsible Party
Private Funding Sources:
Cities and County
Development Mitigation Fees
$539.6M Approval of County Ordinance
Approval of City(ies) Ordinance
County
Cities
Density Bonus Fees $66M Approval of General Plan County
Public Funding Sources
Local Roads $121M Approval of Measure A, local agreement on
allocation
RCTC/County
Other Transportation $250M % of new road construction RCTC/County
Other infrastructure Projects $unknown Project-by-project negotiation County and Cities
El Sobrante Landfill $90M In place County
County Landfills $10M In place County
Eagle Mountain Landfill $unknown In place pending start-up County
New Regional funding $unknown Voter approval County and Cities
TOTAL LOCAL FUNDS $1,076.6M
8.6 ADEQUACY OF FUNDING
The Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies will annually evaluate the performance of the funding
mechanisms and, notwithstanding other provisions of the MSHCP, will develop any necessary
modifications to the funding mechanisms to address additional funding n eeds. Additionally, this
annual evaluation will include an assessment of the funding plan and anticipate funding needs over
the ensuing 18 months for the purpose of identifying any potential deficiencies in cash flow. If
deficiencies are identified through this evaluation, then the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies will
develop strategies to address any additional funding needs consistent with the terms and conditions
of the MSHCP.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
F-14
EXHIBIT F-6
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study
Update Final Report
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., October 2020
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Final Report
Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Nexus Fee Study Update
Prepared for:
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
October 2020
EPS #171034
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................. 1
Background ............................................................................................................ 1
Original and Existing Fee Schedule ............................................................................ 2
Updated Mitigation Fee Schedules ............................................................................. 3
Key Drivers of Fee Change ....................................................................................... 6
Organization of Report ............................................................................................. 8
2. MSHCP POLICIES, GOALS, AND FINANCING STRATEGY ....................................................... 9
MSHCP Purpose, Basis, and Goals.............................................................................. 9
MSHCP Financing Strategy ..................................................................................... 11
MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources ................................................... 13
Development Mitigation Fees and Calculation ............................................................ 16
3. HABITAT PROTECTION TO DATE AND FUTURE CONSERVATION SCENARIO ................................. 18
Habitat Protection Accomplishments Through 2019 .................................................... 18
Conservation Goals and Progress ............................................................................ 18
Land Dedications .................................................................................................. 20
Future Conservation Scenario ................................................................................. 21
4. FORECASTS OF DEVELOPMENT, DEDICATION, FEE PAYMENT ................................................ 25
Historic Development and HCP Fees ......................................................................... 25
Growth Projections ................................................................................................ 26
5. MSHCP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS .............................................................................. 31
Land Costs ........................................................................................................... 31
Other Costs—Administration, Management, and Monitoring ......................................... 35
Endowment Funding .............................................................................................. 38
Total Implementation Costs .................................................................................... 40
6. RCA NON-FEE REVENUES ....................................................................................... 43
MSHCP Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues ..................................................................... 43
New Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues ......................................................................... 44
7. MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION ................................................................................. 46
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
8. MITIGATION FEE ACT (NEXUS) FINDINGS ..................................................................... 52
Purpose of Fee ..................................................................................................... 52
Use of Fee Revenues ............................................................................................. 53
Relationship ......................................................................................................... 53
Need ................................................................................................................... 54
Proportionality ...................................................................................................... 54
9. FEE IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................ 56
Adoption of Revised LDMF ...................................................................................... 56
Securing Supplemental Funding .............................................................................. 56
Annual Review ...................................................................................................... 56
Surplus Funds ...................................................................................................... 57
Annual and Periodic Updates................................................................................... 57
Appendix I: Detailed Time Series of Implementation Costs, Excluding Endowment Funding
Appendix II: Detailed Time Series of Endowment Funding
List of Tables
Table 1 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule ............................................................ 3
Table 2 Updated MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees .................. 4
Table 3 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule by Extension Scenario ................................... 6
Table 4 MSHCP Goals by Area Plan ........................................................................ 11
Table 5 2004 Estimates: MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources ............... 14
Table 6 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule .......................................................... 17
Table 7 Conservation Through End of 2019 ............................................................. 18
Table 8 Required Acquisition Acres to Achieve ARL Goals .......................................... 24
Table 9 Projected Growth in Western Riverside County, through 2050 ......................... 29
Table 10 Projected Developed Acres in Western Riverside County, by
Extension Scenario ................................................................................... 30
Table 11 Per-Acre Land Value Estimates—2003 Dollars (2003 Nexus Study) .................. 32
Table 12 Local Conservation Costs Through 2018 ...................................................... 32
Table 13 Planning Level Per Acre Land Value Estimates by Category ............................. 33
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Table 14 Illustrative Distribution of Land Acquisitions by Land Use and Size................... 34
Table 15 Aggregate Land Value of Remaining Areas (2017 dollars) ............................... 34
Table 16 Administrative and Professional Services Costs ............................................. 36
Table 17 Management and Monitoring Anticipated Costs in 2004 and 2019 Dollars ........ 38
Table 18 Annual Implementation Cost Estimate (2019$) ............................................. 39
Table 19 Endowment Funding (2019$), by Extension Scenario .................................... 40
Table 20 Total Implementation Costs (2019$*), by Extension Scenario ......................... 41
Table 21 Average Annual Implementation Costs (2019$), by Extension Scenario ............ 42
Table 22 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources ................................................... 44
Table 23 Annual Non-Fee Revenue Projection (2019$s) .............................................. 45
Table 24 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees ............................ 47
Table 25 Recommended Fee Level—No Extension ...................................................... 48
Table 26 Recommended Fee Level—5-Year Extension ................................................. 49
Table 27 Recommended Fee Level—10-Year Extension ............................................... 50
Table 28 Recommended Fee Level—15-Year Extension ............................................... 51
List of Figures
Figure 1 State of Conservation in 2003: Conserved Land, Additional Reserve
Land to be Acquired, and Total MSHCP Conservation Area Needed .................. 10
Figure 2 MSHCP Estimated Annual Costs in Millions, 2004 Dollars ................................ 15
Figure 3 MSHCP Estimated Annual Revenues in Millions, 2004 Dollars .......................... 16
Figure 4 MSHCP Conservation Goals, 2019 and 2029 Goals Highlighted ........................ 19
Figure 5 Progress Towards ARL Through End of 2019 ................................................ 20
Figure 6 Residential Unit Development, Western Riverside County, 2005-2019 .............. 25
Figure 7 New Housing Units per Year, SCAG and MSHCP Projections and
Historic Production (2005-2019) ................................................................. 27
Figure 8 Newly Developed Commercial Acres per Year ............................................... 27
Figure 9 Comparison of Costs by Category ............................................................... 40
Figure 10 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources ................................................... 44
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 1 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
1. INTRODUCTION AND KEY FINDINGS
This Updated Nexus Study (2020 Nexus Study) provides the technical justification for changes to
the Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule that applies to Local Permittee participants in the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan). These
changes are necessary to ensure adequate funding of the obligations of the Local Permittees
under the MSHCP and the associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement. The
resulting increased fee revenues will support the continued implementation of the MSHCP and
the streamlining of endangered species incidental take permitting for new Western Riverside
County development provided under the MSHCP. This Nexus Study is consistent with the
requirements of California Government Code 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act) that requires
specific findings (as well as administration and implementation procedures) for “any action
establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by
a local agency.”
Background
The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP or Plan),
originally adopted in 2004, is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside
County. The MSHCP was developed in response to the need for future growth opportunities in
Western Riverside County while addressing the requirements of the State and federal
Endangered Species Acts. The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan
under the NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP streamlines these environmental permitting processes
by allowing the participating jurisdictions to authorize “take” of plant and wildlife species
identified within the Plan Area. At the same time, Plan implementation provides a coordinated
MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program to preserve biological diversity and
maintain the region’s quality of life.
The MSHCP and the associated Implementing Agreement and Incidental Take Permit collectively
determine a set of conservation actions that must be taken to meet the terms of the Incidental
Take Permit and benefit from the regulatory streamlining and other benefits of the MSHCP. This
includes the identification of the responsible parties, including the responsibilities of the Local
Permittees.1 One of the key requirements of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement, and
Incidental Take Permit (consistent with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act)
is the provision of adequate funding by Local Permittees to the Implementing Entity (the Western
Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2) to conduct their portion of the conservation
actions identified in the MSHCP.
1 Local Permittees include the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, County Regional Park and Open-Space District, County Department
of Waste Resources, and Riverside County Transportation Commission.
2 The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency is a Joint Powers Authority established
in 2004 to implement the MSHCP.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 2 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Section 8.0 of the MSHCP outlines the MSHCP funding/financing approach. It also identified best
estimates of Plan implementation costs at the time of Plan adoption, including the local funding
commitment that represents a portion of the overall land acquisition, management and
monitoring, and Plan administration costs. The Local Funding Program included a mix of funding
sources to provide “an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP.”
The proposed funding sources included Local Development Mitigation Fees (and land
dedications), regional infrastructure project public contributions (including contributions to
mitigate for transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local public capital
construction projects, and regional flood control projects), and landfill tipping fees.
Participating cities and the County were each required to implement a Local Development
Mitigation Fee under California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee
Act”) and supported by the separate “Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Report for the Western
Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,” July 1, 2003 (Original or 2003
Nexus Study). The MSHCP funding chapter notes the need for frequent evaluations of the
performance of the funding mechanisms and assessments of the funding plan and the need to
make any necessary modifications to the funding mechanisms. The MSHCP also notes that the
mitigation fee will need to be “reevaluated and revised should it be found to insufficiently cover
mitigation of new development.”
In addition to the common practice of updating mitigation fees periodically to account for
changing circumstances, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA)
has determined that significant changes have occurred and/or circumstances have arisen that
justify an update to the mitigation fees. These changes include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• The need to acquire more land than originally forecast due to the lower than expected land
dedication.
• The lower-than-expected levels of non-fee funding from local and regional funding sources.
• The lower than expected levels of residential development.
• The need to diversify land acquisitions away from a focus on the larger, more remote parcels
to also acquiring parcels closer to urbanized areas, consistent with the reserve assembly
requirements of the MSHCP.
Original and Existing Fee Schedule
All local jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP and obtaining coverage for public and private
take in their jurisdictions were required to adopt and implement the 2004 Mitigation Fee
Schedule through ordinance and resolution and then to pass through the fee funding (except for
any additional administrative charges added by the jurisdictions) to the RCA to fund MSHCP
implementation. The ordinances allowed for periodic inflationary increases based on the annual
change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area. In 2018 the
Bureau of Labor Statistics implemented a geographic revision, establishing Riverside as its own
Core Based Statistical Area. As a result, Riverside was removed from the Consumer Price Index
encompassing Los Angeles and Anaheim. Going forward, inflationary increases will be based on
the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the newly established Riverside-San
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 3 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Bernardino-Ontario area. As outlined in the 2003 Nexus Study (Original Nexus Study), all new
development in Western Riverside County is required to pay the mitigation fee.
Table 1 shows the original 2004 Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule and the current
2021 Fee Schedule that reflects periodic inflationary fee adjustments using the indexing process
that collectively increased the fees by 35 percent between 2004 and 2020 (this was below the
overall inflation index increase over this period).
Table 1 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule
Fee Category
2004 Fee per unit or
per acre
2021 Fee per
unit or per acre 3
Residential: Up to 8.0 dwelling units per acre
(DUAC) $1,651 $2,234
Residential: 8.0-14.0 DUAC $1,057 $1,430
Residential: 14.0+ DUAC $859 $1,161
Commercial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Industrial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Updated Mitigation Fee Schedules
This 2020 Nexus Study has estimated the increased fee level that would be required to provide
sufficient revenues, based on the best available forecasts of future growth, to support the full
implementation of the MSHCP, including the completion of all land acquisition and the
establishment of the necessary endowment, by 2029 (Year 25 of Plan implementation).4
Because, as shown below, this would require a major increase in the fee levels, three other
scenarios are also considered where different time extensions provide more time for land
acquisition.5 These extensions allow for the costs of Plan implementation (including land
acquisitions) to be spread across more development and, as a result, moderate the level of
mitigation fee increase required. In addition, the longer extension scenarios require a pace of
land acquisition that is more consistent with what has proven to be achievable. All of these fee
3 Note it is RCA procedure to refer to fees during, for example, Fiscal Year 2020/2021, as the 2021
fee. The 2021 fee became effective July 1, 2020, and applies for the fiscal year of 2020-21 (i.e., until
June 30, 2021 when the 2022 Fee begins).
4 The MSHCP provided a 25-year period of the required land acquisition with the larger 75-year permit
term. This is labelled the “No Extension” or “Baseline Scenario” in this Update Study.
5 The baseline scenario as well as the extension scenarios assume that all land acquisition as well as
the full endowment will be completed/ established by the end of the specified implementation/ land
acquisition period. Interest from the non-depleting endowment will fund all ongoing costs thereafter.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 4 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
increases would be consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act and the MSHCP and associated
Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement.
The mitigation fee levels shown for each extension scenario are the fee levels required to cover
the appropriate portion of the Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs based on the best
information available at this time. The revised mitigation fee levels reflect changes in estimated
costs, expected levels of land dedication, and non-fee funding. Consistent with the MSHCP and
Original Nexus Study, it is assumed that all new development in Western Riverside County will
pay the mitigation fee because, as noted in the MSHCP, “new development affects the
environment through construction activity and cumulatively through population bases that result
from such development.”6 Importantly, the revised mitigation fee levels also reflect the decision
to determine the mitigation fee that applies to different land uses on a consistent per gross acre
basis. This approach is considered to provide a clear, consistent, and proportionate method for
determining mitigation fees on new development.7 The 2020 Nexus Study does convert the
overarching per gross acre fee into per unit residential fees for different density ranges; this
conversion was conducted to provide implementation/administrative consistency for member
jurisdictions.
Table 2 Updated MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees
6 Consistent with the Original Nexus Study and the technical analysis in this study update (and as
described in more detail in the Fee Implementation Handbook), certain types of public improvements/
infrastructure projects will make mitigation payments calculated as a percent of total improvement
cost. All projects are required to make a mitigation payment/contribution (except where exempted as
specified in the Ordinance); where no mitigation payment process is specified, the project will pay the
updated per acre mitigation fee.
7 This is the approach taken by the majority of regional Habitat Conservation Plans in California,
including the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee.
Fee Per Acre No Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Net Cost $912,756,583 $902,353,150 $892,767,438 $883,987,805
Acres of Development
Residential 14,026 21,818 29,611 37,403
Nonresidential 6,239 9,705 13,171 16,637
Total 20,265 31,523 42,782 54,040
Mitigation Fee per Acre $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 5 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
As shown in Table 2, the required mitigation fee per gross acre of development varies
substantially based on level of extension as follows:
• No Extension. Under the current structure, where all land acquisition must occur by the
end of Year 25 of MSHCP implementation (2029), a mitigation fee of $45,041 per acre of
development would be required.
• 5-Year Extension. With a 5-year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the
end of Year 30 of MSHCP implementation (2034), a mitigation fee of $28,625 per acre of
development would be required.
• 10-Year Extension. With a 10-year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the
end of Year 35 of MSHCP implementation (2039), a mitigation fee of $20,868 per acre of
development would be required.
• 15-Year Extension. With a 15-year extension, where all land acquisition must occur by the
end of Year 40 of MSHCP implementation (2044), a mitigation fee of $16,358 per acre of
development would be required.
For residential development, the per gross acre fee is translated into per residential unit fees by
density category to provide for a fee framework that is consistent with the current fee structure.
The per residential unit fees are calculated by dividing the per gross acre fee by an assumed
typical/ average density for each of the three density ranges (low, medium, and high).8 The full
mitigation fee schedule (for each extension scenario) is shown in Table 3, including the per unit
residential fees by density category and per gross acre fees for non-residential development.
The typical/ average residential densities used to calculate the per-unit residential fees are the
same as the density assumptions in the Original Nexus Study.9
8 For example, the $3,635 per unit Residential – Low fee under the 15-year extension is derived by
dividing the overall per gross acre mitigation fee of $16,358 (shown in Figure 2) by the assumed
typical/average density of Residential Low of 4.5 units/acre.
9 The Fee Implementation Handbook provides more specifics on how to determine a project’s
residential density and therefore the appropriate per unit residential fee that applies.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 3 Updated Mitigation Fee Schedule by Extension Scenario
Key Drivers of Fee Change
The change in Local Development Mitigation Fee is the result of a number of different
contributing factors (“moving parts”), fully documented and detailed in Chapters 2 through 7.
This Nexus Study is based on the most current information available including, for some inputs,
recent years of experience from MSHCP implementation. The factors that have had the most
significant effect on the Local Development Mitigation Fee calculations are summarized below.
1. Lower-than-expected land dedications substantially increase the Local Permittee
habitat acquisition cost component of MSHCP implementation. The MSHCP assumed
that 41,000 of the 97,000 acres (42 percent) to be conserved by Local Permittee
action/funding would be provided at no cost through land dedication associated with
development inside the Criteria Cells. Through the first sixteen years of Plan
implementation, less than 1,000 acres of the Local Permittee habitat conservation obligations
have been generated through these dedications. An additional 10,000 acres of land
dedication requirements have been required as part of proposed developments that have yet
to occur. Beyond the dedication associated with previously proposed projects, additional
land dedication is not expected.10 As a result, the 2020 Nexus Study assumes the noted
10,000 acres of land dedication is formalized over the next eight years (an average annual
land dedication of 1,250 acres per year) prior to the end of the current land acquisition
period. No additional land dedication is assumed, even if the acquisition period is extended.
As a result, at the end of the current habitat acquisition period (Year 25 of Plan
10 In September 2016, the RCA revised its fee credit and waiver policy, limiting the likelihood of
projects paying fees and dedicating land.
Fee Per Unit No
Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Residential - Low (Up to 8.0 DUAC)2 3 $2,234 $10,009 $6,361 $4,637 $3,635
Residential - Medium (8.0-14.0 DUAC)2 3 $1,430 $4,170 $2,650 $1,932 $1,515
Residential - High (14.0+ DUAC) 2 3 $1,161 $1,846 $1,173 $855 $670
Commercial / Industrial (per acre)$7,606 $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc.
3. DUAC stands for Dwelling Units per Acre.
Current Fee
20211
1. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Conservation. Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule for FY 2020-21
(Effective July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021), annually adjusted using the Consumer Price Index.
2. Per acre mitigation fees translated into per unit fees based on the following residential densities: for low density, 4.5 units
per acre; for medium density, 10.8 units per acre; for high density, 24.4 units per acre, consistent with the assumptions used
in Appendix E of the original Nexus Study.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 7 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
implementation), total land dedication is expected to represent about 11,000 acres and about
11 percent of the Local Permittee land conservation requirement. The RCA therefore needs
to directly acquire an additional 30,000 acres of land relative to the expectations of the
Original Nexus Study.
2. Lower than expected regional infrastructure public contributions have reduced the
non-fee funding available, increasing the costs to be funded through the mitigation
fee. The MSHCP assumed a substantial level of funding from regional infrastructure project
public contributions, including transportation infrastructure, regional utility projects, local
public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects, as well as from
landfill tipping fees. While the Measure A sales tax has provided substantial funding as
expected, other revenue sources, on aggregate, have provided (and are expected to continue
to provide) substantially less funding than forecast in the 2003 Nexus Study. As a result,
mitigation fees will need to cover about 91 percent of Local Permittee MSHCP implementation
costs relative to the original assumption of about 56 percent.
3. The change towards a consistent “per gross developed acre” fee basis provides a
more consistent approach for all land use development types. The 2003 Nexus Study
used an “Equivalent Benefit Unit” approach to distributing mitigation costs between different
land use categories. This Nexus Study adjusts the fee calculation to the more commonly
used per gross acre basis. Under this approach, the new Local Development Mitigation Fees
are all based on one “across the board” per gross acre fee determination. Non-residential
development then pays this per acre fee, while per unit residential fees by density category
are derived from this common per gross acre fee.11 This change evens out some of the prior
differences in mitigation fee levels.
4. The estimates of average per acre land values have not changed substantially, so
they have had a limited effect on the change in mitigation fees. The original MSHCP
implementation cost estimate was based on an average land value of about $13,100 per
acre. This was based on research on land transactions of parcels with different land use
designations and sizes in 2001/2002. The land valuation analysis conducted for this Nexus
Study estimated a planning-level land value of about $14,300 per acre based on land
transactions primarily in the 2014 to 2017 period (inflated to 2019-dollar terms). As a
result, land value estimates have not changed substantially in nominal dollar terms since the
Original Nexus Study. This estimated per acre land value is above the cost of most RCA
transactions to date, though the average land values of future RCA land acquisition are
expected to increase due to the increasing need to purchase more expensive land in
“linkage” areas.
11 Similar to the Original Nexus Study, all new development in Western Riverside County is required
to pay the mitigation fee (or otherwise provide the necessary mitigation). The conversion from per
gross acre to per unit fees for residential development is conducted to provide administrative
continuity for member agencies.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
O rganization of Report
This Nexus Study includes several chapters. Chapter 1, this chapter, describes the purpose and
need for this Nexus Study, the recommended changes in the Local Development Mitigation Fee,
and the key drivers of these changes. Chapters 2 through 7 provide the technical analysis that
supports the updated fees and nexus findings. Chapter 2 summarizes the purpose of and basis
for the MSHCP, the conservation requirements of the MSHCP, and the financing strategy and
approach developed to implement the MSHCP in 2004. Chapter 3 describes the conservation
achievements to date, identifies the remaining conservation requirements, and identifies
expected land dedication. Chapter 4 provides the development forecast used in the calculation
of the updated mitigation fees. Chapter 5 provides the estimates of MSHCP implementation
costs, including land acquisition, management and monitoring, program administration, and
endowment. Chapter 6 describes the historical levels of non-fee revenues available to help fund
Local Permittee MSHCP implementation costs. Chapter 7 brings together the technical analysis
in Chapters 2 through 6 to estimate the updated 2020 Local Development Mitigation Fees.
Chapter 8 provides the nexus findings required under the Mitigation Fee Act as require to
establish the updated fees. Finally, Chapter 9 highlights some of the administration and
implementation requirements under the Mitigation Fee Act, recognizing that the Fee
Implementation Handbook provides more specific guidance to the RCA and its partner agencies
on the implementation of the mitigation fee program.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
2. MSHCP POLICIES, GOALS, AND FINANCING STRATEGY
MSHCP Purpose, Basis, and Goals
In response to the need to maintain future growth opportunities in Western Riverside County
while addressing the requirements of the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, the County
and the Riverside County Transportation Commission initiated the Riverside County Integrated
Project (RCIP) in 1999. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP) is one part of the RCIP that includes:
• Updated County General Plan. Addresses the required general plan elements such as land
use, circulation, housing and open space, and conservation and includes programs to
implement the MSHCP, enhance transit alternatives, and encourage development of mixed-
use centers.
• Community and Environment Transportation Acceptability Process. Identifies future
transportation corridors in Western Riverside and provides needed environmental
documentation to allow preservation of future right-of-ways.
• MSHCP. The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP
or Plan) is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on
the conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The
MSHCP conserves vulnerable plant and animal species and their associated habitats in
Western Riverside County and supports economic development.
The MSHCP was adopted in 2003 by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Subsequently,
all of the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, County Regional Parks and Open-Space District, County Department of
Waste Resources, Riverside County Transportation Commission, California Department of
Transportation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Fish and
Game, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the RCA signed an Implementing Agreement for the
MSHCP. The Implementing Agreement includes terms to ensure MSHCP-implementation, defines
remedies and recourses should any of the parties of the Agreement fail to perform obligations,
and provides assurances that, as long as the MSHCP is being implemented, the Wildlife Agencies
will not require additional mitigation from the Permittees.12
The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species
Act of 1973 as well as a Natural Communities Conservation Plan under the NCCP Act of 2001.
The MSHCP streamlines these environmental permitting processes by allowing the participating
jurisdictions to authorize “take” of plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. At
the same time, Plan implementation provides a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and
implementation program to preserve biological diversity and maintain the region’s quality of life.
12 The Wildlife Agencies include the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife and the Permittees include all of the other parties to the Implementing Agreement.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
The MSHCP and the associated Implementing Agreement and Incidental Take Permit collectively
determine a set of conservation actions, and the associated responsible parties, that must be
taken to meet the terms of the Incidental Take Permit and benefit from the regulatory
streamlining and other benefits of the MSHCP. This includes the identification of the
responsibilities of the Local Permittees.13
MSHCP Conservation Requirements
The goal of the MSHCP is to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystems processes
while allowing future economic growth. The MSHCP calls for an MSHCP Conservation Area of
500,000 acres and focuses on the conservation of 146 species.
Figure 1 State of Conservation in 2003: Conserved Land, Additional Reserve Land to
be Acquired, and Total MSHCP Conservation Area Needed
e County
Regional
As shown in Figure 1, when the MSHCP was adopted, existing public and quasi-public
conservation lands covered 347,000 acres, leaving a need for 153,000 acres of land, called
Additional Reserve Land (ARL), to meet the goals of the MSHCP (see Figure 1). The MSHCP
specifies that responsibility for the conservation of the 153,000-acre Additional Reserve Lands is
shared by the local development process (97,000 acres) and state and federal purchases
(56,000).
13 Local Permittees include the Western Riverside cities, the County of Riverside, County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, County Regional Park and Open Space District, County Department
of Waste Resources, and Riverside County Transportation Commission.
282,000
56,000
338,000
65,000
97,000
162,000347,000
153,000
500,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2004 Existing
Public/Quasi Public
Land
Acquire: Additional
Reserve Land
Total
Acres
Federal/State Local
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 11 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 4 MSHCP Goals by Area Plan
The MSHCP includes methods to determine whether the goals of the Plan are being met. One of
the methods is measuring the extent to which conservation acquisitions are moving toward
acquisition goals by each Area Plan.14 Area Plans are established in the County’s General Plan
and are used in the MSHCP as a common geographic unit in Western Riverside County. The
MSHCP established low, high, and midpoint acquisition goals for each Area Plan based on
biological needs. The midpoint acquisition goals for each Area Plan range from 165 to nearly
49,935 acres, as shown in Table 4. The midpoint goals sum to 158,605 which represents
5,605 acres more than are needed to fulfill the MSHCP goals. As a result, acquisitions in some
Area Plans can fall below the mid-point targets while the total ARL can still achieve the
153,000-acre goal.
MSHCP Financing Strategy
One of the key requirements of the MSHCP, Implementing Agreement, and Incidental Take
Permit (consistent with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act) is the provision
of adequate funding by Local Permittees to the Implementing Entity (the Regional Conservation
Authority) to conduct the conservation actions identified in the MSHCP as the responsibility of the
Local Permittees.
14 Other geographic units include Rough Steps, city jurisdictions, and Area Plan subunits. For the
purposes of this analysis, Area Plans have been selected as the primary unit of analysis because they
are the middle-sized unit (smaller than Rough Steps and larger than Area Plan subunits) and have not
changed over time (unlike jurisdictions, several of which have incorporated since the adoption of the
MSHCP.
Cities of Riverside and Norco 1,756 90 240 165
Eastvale 665 145 290 220
Elsinore 28,946 11,700 18,515 15,110
Harvest Valley / Winchester 820 430 605 515
Highgrove 1,452 345 675 510
Jurupa 5,476 890 1,870 1,380
Lake Mathews / Woodcrest 11,673 3,215 5,470 4,340
Lakeview / Nuevo 14,682 6,650 10,235 8,445
Mead Valley 7,703 1,885 3,635 2,760
Reche Canyon / Badlands 26,000 10,520 15,610 13,065
REMAP 78,423 41,400 58,470 49,935
San Jacinto Valley 32,828 11,540 19,465 15,500
Southwest Area 66,076 22,500 36,360 29,430
Sun City / Menifee Valley 2,059 1,120 1,585 1,355
Temescal Canyon 10,007 3,485 5,800 4,645
The Pass 22,652 8,540 13,925 11,230
Total 311,218 124,455 192,750 158,605
Area Plan Total Area of
Criteria Cells Low End of Goal High End of
Goal Midpoint
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 12 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Section 8.0 of the MSHCP addresses “MSHCP Funding/Financing of Reserve Assembly and
Management.” This section provides best estimates of Plan implementation costs at the time of
Plan adoption, including the local funding commitment – the portion of Plan implementation costs
that represents the Local Permittees’ portion of the overall land acquisition, management,
monitoring, adaptive management, and Plan administration costs. Section 8.5 describes the
Local Funding Program. The Local Funding Program included a mix of funding sources to provide
“an equitable distribution of the cost for local mitigation under the MSHCP.” The proposed
funding sources included Local Development Mitigation Fees, density bonus fees, regional
infrastructure project public contributions (including transportation infrastructure, regional utility
projects, local public capital construction projects, and regional flood control projects), and
landfill tipping fees. Key components of the overall MSHCP implementation and funding strategy
are highlighted below:
• The Regional Conservation Authority would implement the MSHCP with funding from different
sources.
• The permanent protection of 97,000 acres in Additional Reserve Lands by Year 25 of the Plan
(2029) would be achieved through direct purchase of habitat lands by the RCA using local
funding and through the HANS dedication process.15
• Local funding sources would fund the ongoing management and maintenance costs of the
local portion of the Additional Reserve Lands acquired through local funding (97,000 acres by
end of acquisition period).
• Local funding sources would fund monitoring activities on the pre-Plan local conservation and
all the new Additional Reserve Lands (500,000 acers by end of acquisition period).
• The permanent protection of 56,000 acres in Additional Reserve Lands by Year 25 would be
achieved using state/federal funding sources or contributions.
• State and federal funding sources would fund the management and maintenance costs of the
State/federal portion of the required Additional Reserve Lands.
• Local Development Mitigation Fees (on private development) would fund the Local Permittee
MSHCP implementation costs that were not funded by other local/regional funding sources or
public contributions for public development project mitigation.
• The overall permit period was set at 75 years. Once habitat acquisition was completed by
Year 25, remaining funds along with newly created revenue sources were to be used to fund
15 Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP describes the HANS process. The Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition
Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process applied to any property owner applying for a discretionary
permit for land within a Criteria Area/Criteria Cell. Under the process, the County determined whether
portions of the property are needed for conservation and then may send their evaluation to the RCA
for Joint Project Review (JPR). During JPR, the project applicant negotiated the terms of the
development and conservation of the project. The applicant also paid fees on the new development.
This approach was refined when a new fee credit policy, adopted in 2016, provided for fee credits
where appropriate lands are dedicated.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 13 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
monitoring and management as well as to fund the establishment of an endowment to cover
ongoing post-permit costs (beyond Year 75).
Importantly, the MSHCP funding chapter notes that frequent evaluations of the performance of
the funding mechanisms and assessments of the funding plan will occur and that any necessary
modifications to the funding mechanisms will be developed.
MSHC P Implementation Costs and Funding Sources
The original estimated costs and proposed funding sources were documented in the MSHCP and
are summarized in Table 5. These were developed based on research and analysis conducted as
part of MSHCP development.
As shown, Plan implementation costs over the first 25 years of implementation were estimated at
about $950 million in 2004-dollar terms. Key assumptions driving the implementation cost
estimates included:
• Dedications. Direct acquisition using local funding sources would be required to acquire
56,000 acres, with 41,000 acres (or 42 percent) of the required local habitat protection
coming through HANS dedication.
• Land Cost. Average land value of $13,100 per acre for Additional Reserve Lands purchased
by the RCA.
• Management and Monitoring: Management and monitoring costs included three key
components as follows: Reserve Management, Adaptive Management, and Biological
Monitoring.16
• Program Administration. RCA program administration costs would average about
$1.2 million each year in 2004 dollars during the 25-year period where land acquisition was
required.
• Cost Distribution. Overall, land acquisition costs were estimated at 77 percent of total
implementation costs, with management and monitoring at 20 percent, and program
administration at 3 percent (see Figure 2).
16 See Chapter 5 of the MSHCP for a description of these activities.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 14 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 5 2004 Estimates: MSHCP Implementation Costs and Funding Sources
Total for % of
2004 - 2028 Average Total Cost/
Item (Years 1 - 25)Annual Funding Need
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 97,000 acres 3,880 acres na
HANS Dedication 41,000 acres 1,640 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 56,000 acres 2,240 acres na
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)$733,600,000 $29,344,000 76.91%
Management & Monitoring $190,200,000 $7,608,000 19.94%
RCA Staff $30,000,000 $1,200,000 3.15%
Other Costs na na na
Endowment not included not included na
Total Costs $953,800,000 $38,152,000 100.0%
Local Revenues
Private Development Mitigation Fees $539,600,000 $21,584,000 50.1%
Density Bonus Fees $66,000,000 $2,640,000 6.1%
Regional Transportation Infra. (2)$250,000,000 $10,000,000 23.2%
Local Roads (Measure A) $121,000,000 $4,840,000 (3)11.2%
Tipping Fees (4)$100,000,000 $4,000,000 9.3%
Miscellaneous Revenues (5)$0 $0 0.0%
Total Revenues $1,076,600,000 $43,064,000 100%
(1) Average land value per acre assumed to be $13,100 per acre.
(2) Public contributions at specificed % of new road construction.
(3) $121 million to be provided over 10 years, so $12.1 million annually over that period.
(4) Includes $90 million from El Sobrante Landfill and $10 million from other County landfills.
(5) Other potential revenues, including public contributions from other public projects, tipping fees
from Eagle Mountain Landfill, and potential new voter-approved regional funding were noted but not estimated.
Source: Chapter 8 of MSHCP; Economic & Planning Systems.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 15 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Figure 2 MSHCP Estimated Annual Costs in Millions, 2004 Dollars
As also shown in Table 5, MSHCP funding from local/regional sources was estimated to be about
$1.0 billion in 2004 dollars through Year 25, sufficient to cover the implementation costs over
this period. Key assumptions driving the funding estimates included:
• Measure A. Measure A (local sales tax transportation funding measure) would provide $121
million over 10 years in 2004-dollar terms.
• Regional Transportation Funding. Public contributions from regional transportation
infrastructure projects would provide an average of $10 million each year or $250 million
through Year 25.
• Tipping Fees. Landfill tipping fees would provide about $100 million in revenue over 25
years, about $4 million each year, primarily from the El Sobrante landfill.
• Mitigation Fees. Private development fees, including private development mitigation fees
and density bonus fees, would generate over $600 million over the first 25 years, about $24
million annually.
• Development Forecast and Participation. The forecast of private development fees was
based on a preliminary fee schedule and the forecast of 336,000 new residential units
(13,440 units each year) and 371 acres each year of commercial and industrial development.
All new development was assumed to pay the private development mitigation fee with a
portion paying the density bonus fee.
• Other Funding Options. Potential additional funding might come through contributions
from other local/regional public entities, other landfills, or new voter-approved funding
initiatives.
• Funding Distribution. Overall, about 55 percent of the estimated funding was expected to
be generated by private development fees, with 45 percent from other funding sources.
Land,
$29.3, 77%
Mangmnt.
&
Monitoring
$7.6 , 20%
RCA Staff,
$1.2 , 3%
$38.1 million total
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 16 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Figure 3 MSHCP Estimated Annual Revenues in Millions, 2004 Dollars
Development Mitigation Fees and Calculation
The MSHCP notes that “new development affects the environment directly through construction
activity and cumulatively through population bases that result from Development.” As a result,
the cities and County are required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee that was
expected to represent one of the primary sources of funding for the implementation of the
MSHCP. The MSHCP indicates that the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be adopted under
California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee Act”) that “allows cities
and counties to charge new development for the costs of mitigating the impacts of new
development.”
The MSHCP identified preliminary estimates of Local Development Mitigation Fees and indicated
that these mitigation fees were expected to generate the majority of funding for Local Permittee
obligations. The MSHCP noted that, under the Mitigation Fee Act, “a nexus study is required to
demonstrate that the proposed fee is proportionate to the impacts of new development.” The
Mitigation Fee Act also includes a number of reviewing and reporting requirements. The MSHCP
also notes that the fee will need to be “reevaluated and revised should it be found to
insufficiently cover mitigation of new development.”
A nexus study entitled “Final Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Report for the Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan” was completed on July 1, 2003
(2003/Original Nexus Study). This nexus study conducted a detailed analysis of the costs of
implementing the Plan, identified the Local Permittee funding obligations, determined the portion
to be funded through the Local Development Mitigation Fee, and made the necessary nexus
findings under the Mitigation Fee Act. The MSHCP and 2003 Nexus Study both indicated that all
new development in the Western Riverside County Plan Area affects covered species and habitat
and so the Local Development Mitigation Fees would apply to all new development in
participating jurisdictions in Western Riverside County.
Private
Dev. Mit.
Fees,
$21.6, 50%
Density
Bonus Fees,
$2.6 , 6%
Regional
Transp.
Infra.,
$10.0 , 23%
Local Roads
(Meas. A) ,
$4.8 , 11%
Tipping
Fees, $4.0 ,
10%
$43.3 million total
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 17 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Mitigation Fee Schedule and Adjustments
All local jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP and obtaining coverage for public and private
take in their jurisdictions were required to adopt and implement this mitigation fee schedule
through ordinance and resolution and then to pass through the fee funding (minus any additional
administrative charges) to the RCA to fund MSHCP implementation. Indexed-increases based on
the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area were
provided for in the ordinances to allow modest adjustments in mitigation fees to respond to
inflationary cost increases. Due to the geographic revision implemented by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, going forward indexed-adjustments will be based on the annual change in the
Consumer Price Index for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area.
Table 6 shows the original 2004 Local Development Mitigation Fee schedule and current 2021
Fee schedule that reflects periodic inflationary fee adjustments using the indexing process.
Table 6 2004 and 2021 MSHCP Fee Schedule
Fee Category
2004 Fee per unit or
per acre
2021 Fee per unit or per
acre
Residential: Up to 8.0 dwelling
units per acre (DUAC) $1,651 $2,234
Residential: 8.0-14.0 DUAC $1,057 $1,430
Residential: 14.0+ DUAC $859 $1,161
Commercial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Industrial (per acre) $5,620 $7,606
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 18 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
3. HABITAT PROTECTION TO DATE AND FUTURE CONSERVATION
SCENARIO
The RCA has achieved substantial levels of habitat protection to date using the funding sources
established and the associated variable flows of incoming revenues. The level of habitat
protection achieved, because of lower levels of funding and land dedication than expected, has
however fallen behind the pace of protection forecast in the Original Nexus Study. This chapter
summarizes the achieved protection to (1) establish both the scale of future acquisitions required
to meet the overall Additional Reserve Land (ARL) goals, (2) consider the annual pace of habitat
protection through acquisitions and dedications in absolute terms and relative to the original
MSHCP forecasts, and (3) inform the development of the Conservation Scenario that forms the
baseline (project description) for estimating future MSHCP implementation costs and associated
funding requirements and updated mitigation fees.
Habitat Protection Accomplishments Through 2019
Between the start of the MSHCP program and the end of 2019, the most recent full calendar
year, about 40 percent of the 153,000-acre ARL target has been achieved, totaling almost
62,000 acres in acquisitions, easements, or dedications (see Table 7).17 As shown of the
97,000 acres in Local Permittee ARL obligation about 40,200 acres had been protected by the
end of 2019. Of the 56,000 acres in State/Federal ARL obligation, about 21,600 acres have been
protected to date.
Table 7 Conservation Through End of 2019
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Annual Reports;
RCA information on 2019 purchases; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Conservation Goals and Progress
The MSHCP anticipated that acquisition would take place for 25 years, through the end of 2029,
with 97,000 acres conserved through local means and 56,000 acres conserved with State/federal
funding. To achieve this goal, an average of 6,120 acres of conservation is required each year,
17 Note that while the MSHCP was adopted in 2004, certain conservation which took place between
2000 and 2003 was counted toward the MSHCP reserve.
Total
Party Need Conserved Conserved Conserved Remaining Need
2000-2003 2004 - 2019 2000 - 2019 2020-2043
Local 97,000 4,531 35,681 40,212 56,788
State + Fed 56,000 12,408 9,200 21,608 34,392
Total 153,000 16,939 44,881 61,820 91,180
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 19 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
including an average of 3,880 annually from local funding sources/dedications and 2,240
annually from State and federal conservation.
Figure 4 illustrates how steady progress would result in achievement of the ARL goals by 2029.
Figure 5 shows actual progress toward the goals, through 2019. More than 21,000 acres have
been conserved through State/federal means, and over 40,000 acres have been conserved
through local actions. These totals sum to about 40 percent of the total ARL goal of 153,000
acres. As shown in Figure 5, with 16 years of the 25-year acquisition period completed, the ARL
acquisitions have fallen behind the pace forecast in the Original Nexus Study. Protection through
the end of 2019 represents 63 percent of the original forecast (65 percent for Local obligations
and 60 percent for State/federal obligations). For the Local Permittee obligations, as discussed
further below, the lower level of land dedication relative to the original forecasts account for
much of the habitat protection gap that has emerged over the last 16 years.
Figure 4 MSHCP Conservation Goals, 2019 and 2029 Goals Highlighted
62,080
97,000
35,840
56,000
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028MSHCP Goals, 2019 and 2028 Highlighted
Local State/Fed
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 20 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Figure 5 Progress Towards ARL Through End of 2019
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Land Dedications
The MSHCP envisioned a conservation program where land and easements would be purchased
by the RCA and land would be dedicated to the RCA through the development process.18
In addition, the potential for no-cost and low-cost donations for tax benefit purposes was also
created. The MSHCP did not assume donations or conservation easement acquisitions as part of
its financial analysis (this is appropriate given the limited number of such transactions). The
MSHCP did, however, anticipate that 41,000 acres would be conserved through dedications,
56,000 acres through purchases on behalf of local permittees, and 56,000 acres through
purchases conducted by or funded by federal and State agencies/sources for a total of
153,000 acres.
For the local portion of the goal (97,000 acres), this translates into about 42 percent of the goal
conserved via dedications associated with the development review process—called Habitat
Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS)—and the other 58 percent purchased by
the RCA from willing sellers. The level of dedication is a key assumption for the MSHCP
implementation cost estimate as each acre dedicated through HANS is one fewer acre which
must be conserved through land acquisitions at market values.
The HANS process was established to apply to developments proposed within the Criteria Cells of
the MSHCP Study Area. The Criteria Cells represent areas with high conservation values relative
to the areas outside of the Criteria Cells. The HANS process was designed to indicate what
conservation (dedication) may be needed from new development from a biological needs
18 This process is known as the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS).
Fed+State Local Total
Acqu. through 2019 21,608 40,212 61,820
Remaining Need 34,392 56,788 91,180
% of 2019 Expected Goal Achieved 60%65%63%
% of Total Goal Achieved 39%41%40%
60%65%63%
39%41%40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
Acres153,000
97,000
56,000
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 21 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
perspective. Subsequent to that technical analysis, applicants could then proceed to the Joint
Project Review (JPR) process during which the parties negotiate an implementation plan for the
project, consistent with the HANS findings. The applicants would also pay mitigation fees on the
actual development. To date, a modest amount of land (less than 1,000 acres) has been
conserved via the HANS/JPR method compared to the 26,000 acres that was forecast to have
occurred by this point in the MSHCP implementation.
While very little land has been dedicated to the RCA through HANS/JPR, several projects went
through the HANS/JPR process and have agreements in place for dedication/conservation of
lands, but the start date (if any) for these projects is unknown (i.e., may be far in the future).
These projects cover about 35,000 acres in the Criteria Cells and, under the JPR agreements,
have set aside about 30 percent of that total or about 10,000 acres for conservation/dedication.
The adoption of Resolution No. 2016-003 in September 2016 revised the RCA’s fee credit and
waiver policy. This resolution indicated that MSHCP fee credit should be provided in exchange
for land that contributes to reserve assembly. As a result, after the adoption of this resolution,
new development is not be expected to pay mitigation fees and dedicate land in the manner
originally envisioned in the MSHCP limiting the likelihood of the types of dedications envisioned in
the Original Nexus Study.
Future Conservation Scenario
This updated financial analysis, nexus study, and mitigation fees estimate require a base
description of the additional habitat protection required. In subsequent chapters, cost estimates
are developed in reference to, and in application to, this conservation scenario to develop the
overall implementation costs and the associated funding required, both in aggregate and through
time during the land acquisition period of the program. Four questions are of particular
importance:
1. Remaining Habitat Protection. The amount of habitat protection required to meet the
MSHCP requirements.
2. Dedications. The amount of land dedication assumed to occur through the HANS/JPR
process over the habitat protection period and the associated amount of habitat that must be
acquired.
3. Time Frame. The period over which habitat protection goals must be met.
4. Land Characteristics. The characteristics of the land to be protected to meet MSHCP
requirements (e.g., goals by Area Plan, habitat cores and linkages etc., land use designations
and parcel sizes).
The answers to question 1 are provided in the data above (see Table 7). The answer to
question 4 is provided in the subsequent chapter on land costs, with illustrative answers coming
from RCA data and GIS analysis. The answer to question 2 is addressed below and is based on
information on accomplishments to date (described above), discussions with RCA staff, the
current Fee Waiver and Credit Policy, and an assessment of realistic opportunities and
expectations. Finally, question 3 raises the issue of whether an extension to the MSHCP land
acquisition implementation period should be provided. As described below, three different
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 22 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
extension scenarios (5-, 10-, and 15-year extension scenarios) are evaluated, as well as the
baseline, “No Extension Scenario,” to indicate the outcomes under different scenarios.
Habitat Protection, Land Dedication, and Conservation Scenarios
As shown in Table 8, there is a total of about 91,200 acres of land protection still required to
complete the land protection obligations under the MSHCP and to bring the Additional Reserve
Lands to 153,000 acres. Of this, the State/federal requirements is for about 34,400 acres, while
the Local Permittee requirement is for about 56,800 acres.
The experience of the last 16 years indicates that the MSHCP was overly optimistic in terms of
land dedications, assuming that 41,000 acres would be dedicated to the RCA. As noted above,
about 10,000 acres of potential future land dedication is associated with a range of previously
proposed projects. Based on historical information on actual, dedications agreements on
proposed projects, current RCA policy, and consultations with RCA staff, minimal additional
dedication is expected or assumed. This analysis, therefore, assumes that the prior agreement
concerning dedications, summing to about 10,000 acres, will be secured over the next eight
years and prior to the end of the current habitat protection period. Even if the implementation
period were extended, no extra land dedication is forecast to occur.
As a result, and as shown in Table 8, a total of about 46,800 acres of Additional Reserve Land
acquisition is required by Local Permittees for MSHCP implementation once the forecast of
dedications is incorporated. As shown in Table 8, the required average annual pace of habitat
protection varies considerably under the different acquisition period extension scenarios, as
described below: 19
• Baseline/No Extension Scenario. As currently structured, RCA is required to complete
land acquisition by the end of Year 25 of Plan implementation in 2029. This provides nine
(9) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition (distinct from the
assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 5,200 acres each year.
• 5-Year Extension. With a 5-year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be
required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 30 of Plan implementation in 2034.
This provides fourteen (14) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition
(distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 3,300
acres each year.
• 10-Year Extension. With a 10-year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be
required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 35 of Plan implementation in 2039.
This provides nineteen (19) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land acquisition
(distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of about 2,500
acres each year.
19 As a point of reference, the historical pace of Local Permittee-driven habitat protection has been
somewhat above 2,000 acres each year with availability of funding being an important determinant of
the pace of acquisition. The pace of State/federal-driven acquisition has averaged about 1,000 acres
each year.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 23 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
• 15-Year Extension. With a 15-year extension to the acquisition period, the RCA would be
required to complete land acquisitions by the end of Year 40 of Plan implementation in 2044.
This provides twenty-four (24) years to protect the 47,000 acres through direct land
acquisition (distinct from the assumed dedications), an average annual acquisition pace of
about 2,000 acres each year.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 24 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 8 Required Acquisition Acres to Achieve ARL Goals
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Entity/Item Through 2019
2020-End of
Acquisition
Period
Years
Remaining
Annual
Conservation
Acres Required Total Acres
State/Federal 21,608 34,392 9 3,821 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication (1)715 10,000 9 1,111 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 39,497 46,788 9 5,199 86,285
Total Local Conservation 40,212 56,788 9 6,310 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 61,820 91,180 9 10,131 153,000
State/Federal 14 2,457 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication 14 714 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 14 3,342 86,285
Total Local Conservation 14 4,056 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 14 6,513 153,000
State/Federal 19 1,810 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication 19 526 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 19 2,463 86,285
Total Local Conservation 19 2,989 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 19 4,799 153,000
State/Federal 24 1,433 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication 24 417 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 24 1,950 86,285
Total Local Conservation 24 2,366 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 24 3,799 153,000
State/Federal 29 1,186 56,000
Local
HANS Dedication 29 345 10,715
Net Local Acquisition 29 1,613 86,285
Total Local Conservation 29 1,958 97,000
State/Federal + Local = ARL Goal 29 3,144 153,000
NO EXTENSION
10 YEAR EXTENSION
15 YEAR EXTENSION
20 YEAR EXTENSION
5 YEAR EXTENSION
Shading indicates acreage to be acquired with fee revenue.
See above
See above
See above
See above
1. About 10,000 acres of potential future land dedication is associated with a range of previously proposed projects. Based on historical
information on actual, dedications agreements on proposed projects, current RCA policy, and consultations with RCA staff, minimal
additional dedication is expected or assumed beyond these agreements. This analysis, therefore, assumes that the prior agreements
concerning dedications will occur with future dedications summing to about 10,000 acres. The precise timing of these dedications is
uncertain, but are assumed to occur over the next eight years. Average annual numbers in this table are shown distributed across the full
remaining acquisition period of each extension scenario.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 25 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
4. FORECASTS OF DEVELOPMENT, DEDICATION, FEE PAYMENT
Future development within Western Riverside County will both reduce land available for
conservation while also serving as a primary funding mechanism for habitat acquisitions. This
chapter identifies forecasts of future growth in Western Riverside County and develops an
associated forecast of land development that is a key component of the fee calculation.
Historic Development and HCP Fees
The MSHCP anticipated that 13,000 to 14,000 residential units and about 370 commercial and
industrial acres would be developed on average annually. Specifically, between 2005 and 2019,
206,000 residential units were expected in the Plan Area. A review of new units in the Plan Area
indicates about 130,000 units were developed over the period (see Figure 6), about 37 percent
below the forecast.20 While the substantial volatility in the real estate market over the period
(including the housing boom, deep recession, and modest recovery) may explain some of this
difference, the slower pace of development means that fee revenues have been similarly
constrained relative to the original revenue projections.
Figure 6 Residential Unit Development, Western Riverside County, 2005-2019
Source: California Department of Finance; MSHCP Projections
20 Actual units developed have been derived from the California Department of Finance (DOF),
Demographics Unit information through January 1, 2019. Note that the DOF reports data by city and
for the entire Riverside County unincorporated area. Western Riverside’s portion of the total
unincorporated area has been derived based on the area’s historic share of unincorporated County,
taking into account the incorporations of new cities that occurred in Western Riverside County since
MSHCP Plan adoption (Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, Menifee, and Wildomar).
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Number of Residential UnitsProjected
Actual
76,000
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 26 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Growth Projections
SCAG Forecasts in Context
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO)21 representing six counties, 191 cities and more than 18 million residents.
MPOs, such as SCAG are charged under California Senate Bill 375 with developing Sustainable
Community Strategies (SCSs) as part of regional transportation plans. SCAG’s SCS includes
population, household, and job projections through 2040 by city and unincorporated area. SCAG
consults with local governments within the region, including the Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG) which represents Western Riverside County, to develop the projections.
SCAG adopted the 2012-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy
(RTP/SCS) in 2016. The 2016 RTP/SCS forms the basis of the SCAG projections; EPS
extrapolated an annual growth rate from the SCAG projections and, assuming consistent
development trends through 2050, applied the rate in order to estimate development projections
through 2050.
SCAG forecasts for the future, on an annualized basis, were compared with the MSHCP’s original
forecast along with historical information (when available) as described further below:
• Residential Development Forecast. Figure 7 shows, for Western Riverside County, the
annual residential unit count for SCAG projections through 2050, MSHCP projections through
2029, and residential units produced in Western Riverside County between 2005 and 2019.
As shown, the SCAG projections suggest about 8,750 units each. This is similar to the
average annual historic pace of growth between 2005 and 2019 of about 9,260 units, but
well below the original MSHCP projections of about 13,400 units each year. Based on the
similarity between the historical average and the SCAG forecast, the SCAG forecast is
considered a reasonable basis for determining the future pace of residential development and
associated residential land development (based on assumed densities of development).
• Commercial Development Forecast. The SCAG jobs forecast of about 15,000 jobs each
year was converted into an annual gross amount of commercial/industrial development using
the employment density and FAR assumptions used in the most recent Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) update documents. As shown in Figure 8, this results in a
forecast of about 690 acres of commercial/industrial land development each year
(representing an overall average of about 21 jobs per acre of development), considerably
above the original MSHCP projections of about 370 acres each year. The higher SCAG
number, however, appears reasonable given recent and ongoing trends in Western Riverside
County where substantial amounts of new logistics/distribution development have occurred
covering substantial land areas and, as such, is considered reasonable as the basis of the
future forecast of commercial/industrial land development.
21 Federal law requires that an urbanized area with a population of at least 50,000 be guided by a
regional entity known as an MPO. California’s Senate Bill 375 expands the role of the State’s 18 MPOs
to include regional plans that help the State reach its greenhouse gas reduction targets by
encouraging compact development and new development near public transit.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 27 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Figure 7 New Housing Units per Year, SCAG and MSHCP Projections and Historic
Production (2005-2019)
SCAG (2012-2040) and MSHCP Projections (2004-2029) and Historic Production (2005-2019)
Figure 8 Newly Developed Commercial Acres per Year
SCAG (2012-2040) and MSHCP Projections
Note: SCAG job projections converted into acres by EPS
8,747
13,440
9,262
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
SCAG MSHCP Historic
693
371
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
SCAG MSHCP
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 28 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Forecasts for Fee Calculation
For this fee program update, the SCAG projections are considered a reasonable basis for
forecasting future land development. Because all new development is expected to pay the
mitigation fee, all of the forecasted household and job growth is converted into a land
development forecast that is, in turn, used to calculate the mitigation fees. Table 9 shows
SCAG’s overall projections for households and employment in Western Riverside County between
2012 and 2050, and Table 10 shows the implied average annual land development rates, and,
in turn, the overall level of residential and commercial/industrial land development that would be
expected to occur through the end of the land acquisition period for each of the extension
scenarios.22 As shown, all scenarios assume an overall average annual land development of
2,252 acres each year, including 693 acres in commercial/industrial land development and 1,558
acres in annual residential land development.23
• Baseline/No Extension Scenario. Under the no extension scenario, a total of 20,265
acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation
period of nine (9) years and would pay the mitigation fees.
• 5-Year Extension. Under the 5-year extension to the acquisition period, a total of 31,523
acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan implementation
period of 14 years and would pay the mitigation fees.
• 10-Year Extension. Under the 10-year extension to the acquisition period, a total of
42,782 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan
implementation period of 19 years and would pay the mitigation fees.
• 15-Year Extension. Under the 15-year extension to the acquisition period, a total of
54,040 acres of land development is expected to occur during the remaining Plan
implementation period of 24 years and would pay the mitigation fees.
22 Under the MSHCP, all new development is required to pay the mitigation fee and contribute to
funding the implementation of the MSHCP except where specifically exempted in the Ordinance.
23 The 1,558 acres of residential land development was derived based on the forecasted 8,747
residential units each year and assumptions concerning distribution by density category and an
average density level. More specifically, consistent with the recent TUMF analysis assumptions,
70 percent of new residential units are assumed to be in the low density category (less than 8 units
per acre) with an average of 4.5 units/acre, 20 percent are assumed to be the medium density
category (8 to 16 units per acre) with an average of 10.8 units/acre, and 10 percent are assumed to
be the high density category (over 16 units per acre) with an average of 24.4 units/acre. The unit per
acre factors are consistent with those indicated in the Original Nexus Study. The overall implied
average residential density is 5.6 units/gross acre.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 29 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 9 Projected Growth in Western Riverside County, through 2050
SCAG
Households Employment
2012 530,970 463,833
2040 Projection 775,882 869,792
2050 Projection (1)863,350 1,014,777
New Households/Jobs Expected by 2050 332,380 550,944
Average Annual 8,747 14,499
Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area
(1) SCAG projections forecast growth through 2040. EPS assumes the annual growth rate from
2012 to 2040 remains constant through 2050 and applies the rate to an additional 10 years in
order to project growth through 2050.
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 30 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 10 Projected Developed Acres in Western Riverside County, by Extension
Scenario
Proportionate Share 2020-20281 78,722 Households 130,487 Jobs
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2028 14,026 Acres 6,239 Acres 20,265 Acres
Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres
Proportionate Share 2020-20341 122,456 Households 202,979 Jobs
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2034 21,818 Acres 9,705 Acres 31,523 Acres
Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres
Proportionate Share 2020-20381 166,190 Households 275,472 Jobs
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2038 29,611 Acres 13,171 Acres 42,782 Acres
Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres
Proportionate Share 2020-20431 209,924 Households 347,965 Jobs
New Development to Acres2
Acres of New Development Through 2043 37,403 Acres 16,637 Acres 54,040 Acres
Acres per Year 1,558 Acres 693 Acres 2,252 Acres
Sources: California Department of Finance; US Census Bureau; Southern California Association of Governments; Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc.
Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area
5 Year Extension
10 Year Extension
15 Year Extension
(1) SCAG forecasts from the 2016 Report have been used for all cities in Western Riverside County. The projections for the entire
unincorporated area in Riverside have been split into just the Western part of the County through a review of WRCOG's recent
proportion of unincorporated growth, compared to the whole County.
(2) Conversion from household projections to residential acres of developed land is based on expected development mix and
average residential density by land use type, with an average residential density of 5.6 DUAC. Similarly, conversion from job
projections to nonresidential acres of developed land is based on distribution of jobs by workspace type and average employment
density by land use type, with an average nonresidential density of 21 jobs per land acre. Residential density assumptions are
based on data from the Census and California Department of Finance; Employment density assumptions are based on SCAG
data.
Total
No Extension
Residential Non ResidentialSCAG
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 31 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
5. MSHCP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
This chapter describes the analysis and assumptions that underpin the estimation of the total
remaining MSHCP implementation costs in 2019 dollars. Key cost factors evaluated include land
costs, management and monitoring costs, administration and professional services costs, and
endowment costs. Together these cost components form the total MSHCP implementation costs.
Because the duration allowed for land acquisition and endowment establishment affect several of
these cost items, distinct total implementation cost estimates are provided for all scenarios
(i.e., Baseline/ No Extension and the three extension scenarios).
Land Costs
Planning-level estimates of the per acre values associated with potential Additional Reserve Land
(ARL) acquisitions are a critical input into the estimation of total land acquisition costs associated
with Plan implementation. Land acquisition costs represented the majority of the original
estimates of MSHCP implementation costs. This chapter provides planning-level estimates of per
acre land conservation costs in 2019-dollar terms based on available information. In
combination with assumptions concerning the characteristics of the Additional Reserve Lands to
be acquired and potential levels of dedication, the per acre land value estimates drive the
estimate of overall land acquisition costs.
Actual per acre habitat conservation costs may vary from the average planning-level estimates
presented in this chapter for a number of reasons, including differences in the specific
characteristics of the actual parcels acquired as well as fluctuations in economic, real estate, and
land market conditions over time. Individual transactions will require appraisals to establish
their value at the time of acquisition based on parcel characteristics and pertinent market
conditions at the time of appraisal. Over time, per acre and overall cost estimates typically
change for a number of reasons as discussed further in Chapter 9.
MSHCP/Original Nexus Study
The initial adoption of the mitigation fees was based on a nexus study completed in July 2003
that included a land valuation analysis that was completed in December 2002. The land
valuation analysis assumed the acquisition of vacant and unentitled lands in the Criteria Cells.
The land value analysis provided planning-level estimates of per acre land values by grouped
land use designation and by Area Plan. Planning-level land value estimates were based on sales
comparables. The land value estimates indicated per acre land values that were primarily driven
by differentiation in land use category. The land use designation categories represent groupings
of the broad number of land use designations present in the Study Area. Table 11 summarizes
the per-acre land value ranges and resulting averages. Based on this analysis, an overall
weighted average of $13,100 per acre was applied in the MSHCP financial sections in the Original
Nexus Study.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 32 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 11 Per-Acre Land Value Estimates—2003 Dollars (2003 Nexus Study)
Land Use Designation Value Range Resulting Average *
Open Space $2,500 to $10,000 per acre $ 8,000 per acre
Rural/Agricultural $5,000 to $25,000 per acre $11,000 per acre
Community Development $20,000 to $80,000 per acre $45,000 per acre
Overall (1) $2,500 to $80,000 per acre Varied (1)
* Per acre values rounded to the nearest 1,000.
(1) Reported overall average land value per acre depends on mix of land types. Number varies by
documents, though $13,100 per acre was overall value applied in the MSHCP financing sections.
Source: Original 2003 Nexus Study
RCA Experience to Date
Table 12 summarizes average RCA land acquisition costs to date. Including land purchased
shortly before the MSHCP was adopted through the end of 2018, costs for Local Permittee land
acquisitions summed to $352.5 million in nominal dollar terms, an average of $9,400 per acre.
However, for the year 2018, about 2,100 acres were acquired at the higher average per acre
cost of $13,200 per acre.
Table 12 Local Conservation Costs Through 2018
Item Pre-MSHCP
through 2018
2018
Total Acres Acquired (1) 37,547 2,066
Total Cost (millions) $352.5 $27.4
Cost per Acre (Nominal $s) $9,400 $13,200
(1) Includes all acres purchased; does not include acres conserved via easement.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Annual Report 2018;
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
To date, the overall historical level of per acre land acquisition expenditures is well below the
original 2004 per acre land value estimates. The cost of RCA acquisitions during this timeframe
were kept relatively low by concentrating more on lower cost parcels (larger parcels in remote
areas with limited development potential). In 2018, as in the future, the average cost per acre
is expected to be higher than this historical average due to the characteristics of land still
needing to be acquired.
New Land Value Analysis and Conclusions
New 2019 per acre land value estimates were developed based on recent historical transactions
as reported in the sales comparables sections of appraisals conducted for RCA acquisitions. This
data set provided a substantial inventory of over 150 land sales between 2012 and 2017 that
supported conclusions concerning per acre land values by key land value characteristic.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 33 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Similar to the Original Nexus Study, land values were determined to be substantially affected by
land use designation and by parcel size. Land values were developed for twelve different value
categories based on combinations of three land use designations and four different size ranges.
Based on the land valuation data and detailed GIS analysis by RCA staff, parcels were divided
into three groups of development potential based on their land use designation:24
• Open Space. Low development potential land use designations included open space, rural
mountainous, and rural residential.
• Rural. Medium development potential land use designations include agriculture and rural
communities land use designations.
• Community Development. High development potential land use designations include all
community development designations, including residential, non-residential, and other
community development designations.
In addition to these three land use designation groupings reflecting different levels of
development potential, parcels were also divided by parcel size. The land value information
indicated a per acre value distinction between the following parcels sizes:
• Parcels less than 5 acres.
• Parcels between 5 and 20 acres.
• Parcels between 20 and 80 acers.
• Parcels over 80 acres.
Based on the analysis of the sales comparables, Table 13 shows the planning level per acre land
value by land use designation grouping/size range in 2017 dollars.
Table 13 Planning Level Per Acre Land Value Estimates by Category
24 RCA staff developed a consistent set of land use designation categories across different jurisdictions
in the Study Area for the purposes of this study. These formed the basis of the development potential
categories.
Land Use Designation
Less than 5
Acres 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres 80 + Acres
Open Space $11,761 $5,091 $3,949 $1,866
Rural $33,363 $11,553 $8,337 $5,531
Community Development $177,414 $76,050 $72,369 $24,335
Sources: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Per Acre Land Value ($ / Acre)1
1. Most land sale comparables used for pricing are from 2013 to 2017 and were converted to 2017 dollars using BLS
CPI adjustments for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County area.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 34 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
The average land value per acre for future RCA acquisitions is dependent on the different land
values per acre as well as the expected distribution of future acquisitions. The actual land to be
acquired is uncertain and is dependent on the availability of land through willing sellers.
However, based on the conservation needs by Area Plan, the suitable land available for
protection, as well as the specific linkages that must be created between the core reserve areas,
RCA staff provided sufficient information for EPS to develop a general expression of parcels by
characteristic to support the land value analysis. An illustration of the expected distribution of
acres by land use designation and size range is provided in Table 14.
Table 14 Illustrative Distribution of Land Acquisitions by Land Use and Size
Applying the per acre land values in Table 13 to the illustrative land conservation distribution in
Table 14 provides an estimate of the aggregate land value, supporting the estimate of the
average planning level land value per acre in 2017-dollar terms (see Table 15).
Table 15 Aggregate Land Value of Remaining Areas (2017 dollars)
Land Use Designation
Less than 5
Acres 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres 80 + Acres
Open Space 535 1,531 3,626 4,654 10,346
Rural 1,901 17,241 26,802 29,428 75,371
Community Development 638 1,707 3,613 4,384 10,342
Total Purchases by Acreage 3,074 20,479 34,041 38,466 96,059
1. Conservation scenario analysis was conducted in 2017 so overall acres acquired more than those required as of end of 2019.
Sources: RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Total
Conservation Scenario (Acres) (1)
Land Use Designation
Less than 5
Acres 5 - 19.99 Acres 20 - 79.99 Acres 80 + Acres
Open Space $6,292,633 $7,795,633 $14,319,467 $8,682,942 $37,090,674
Rural $63,411,345 $199,183,566 $223,437,526 $162,777,034 $648,809,470
Community Development $113,198,910 $129,817,405 $261,456,200 $106,682,740 $611,155,254
Total Cost of Purchases $182,902,887 $336,796,603 $499,213,192 $278,142,716 $1,297,055,399
% of Total 14%26%38%21%100%
1. This table is the average land value per acre multiplied by the Conservation Scenario. See Table E-1 and E-2.
Sources: RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Total
Land Comparables by Acres
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 35 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
As shown in Table 15, the aggregate land value of the approximately 96,000 acres remaining to
be protected as part of the MSHCP as of 2017 is estimated at about $1.3 billion in 2017 dollars.
This represents an average land value of about $13,500 per acre. To convert this land value into
2019 dollars terms (similar to the rest of the analysis), EPS indexed the value to about $14,300
per acre in 2019-dollar terms.25
Other Costs—Administration, Management, and
Monitoring
Program administration, reserve management, and reserve monitoring are required functions
that require annual funding. The forecasts for each of these cost categories are described below.
Administration and Professional Service Costs
The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority is responsible for implementing
the MSHCP. Since 2004, RCA staff members have directed the acquisition, management, and
monitoring of the local portion of the Additional Reserve Land (ARL) required by the MSHCP,
monitored State and federal Public/Quasi-Public lands and the State and federal portions of the
ARL, and undertook all of the administrative tasks associated with maintaining the permit.
Costs categorized in this fee study under MSHCP administration include all RCA staff costs and
other costs like building rents and average expenditures on non-acquisition related professional
services that are not anticipated to vary as the size of the ARL increases. The forecast for the
acquisition period assumes that these costs will remain at approximately $4.2 million in constant
2019 dollars, increasing with inflation but not increasing as the size of the ARL grows (see Table
16). This includes salaries and benefits of about $2.3 million annually and about $1.5 million in
professional services, supplies, and other costs.
25 Two years of inflation (2017 – 2019) based on by BLS CPI adjustment for Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario Metro Area.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 36 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 16 Administrative and Professional Services Costs
Management and Monitoring
Reserve Management
The MSHCP describes reserve management activities focused on maintaining and improving
habitat conditions and ecosystem functions including habitat and landscape-based activities and
species-specific activities. For the purposes of this analysis, the average per acre cost estimate
for Reserve Management as reported in the RCA actual spending for FY 2018-19 has been used
to inform cost projections through the full acquisition period. Because RCA staff and relevant
contractors have indicated that the current spending on staff capacity is not adequate to
accomplish necessary management with existing land holdings, additional staffing and associated
expenditures have been added to the current reserve management expenditures. Specifically,
three new full time equivalent (FTE) positions are added to the current 2019 spending for
reserve management. Overall, the 2019 per acre reserve management cost of $25.39 per acre
was adjusted to $32.70 per acre (2019 dollars) to account for three new mid-level park ranger
FTEs. While as of the end of 2019 about 40,200 acres were under management, ultimately,
reserve management activities will cover the entire 97,000 acres to be acquired by the RCA.
Biological Monitoring
The purpose of biological monitoring is to provide Reserve Managers with information and data
upon which reserve management decisions will be made. According to the MSHCP, the
monitoring program must provide “sufficient, scientifically reliable data for Reserve Managers to
assess the MSHCP’s effectiveness at meeting resource objectives and achieving or maintaining a
Expenditures
RCA FY16/17- 18/19
3-Year Average of
Actuals
CPI Adjusted to
2019$1
Total Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,219,261 $2,288,495
Professional Services and Supplies
Environmental
Legal $394,320 $406,621
Auditing, Accounting & Financial Services $101,717 $104,891
GIS Services $10,000 $10,312
Personnel Services $13,920 $14,354
Real Estate Services $653,774 $674,169
Other Services $247,979 $255,715
Subtotal $1,421,710 $1,466,062
Other Charges $388,145 $400,254
Total $4,029,116 $4,154,811
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Bureau of Labor Statistics;
(1) Three year average CPI-adjusted by one year, the average of the annual CPI adjustments for the
three years.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 37 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
healthy MSHCP Conservation Area in perpetuity.” Unlike the RCA’s reserve management
activities which are limited to local ARL acres, the RCA will ultimately be responsible for
monitoring all 500,000 acres of the reserve lands mandated under the MSHCP. The acreage
currently being monitored totals roughly 408,000 acres. For the purposes of this analysis, the
$1.1 million annual cost estimate based on FY 2018-19 actual spending was used to inform cost
projections through the full acquisition period. Because current staff capacity is not adequate to
accomplish necessary biological monitoring with existing land holdings, to address the additional
land acquisitions, two new full time equivalent (FTE) positions are added to the current 2019
spending for reserve monitoring. The 2019 per acre reserve monitoring cost of $2.67 was
adjusted to $3.01 (2019 dollars) to account for two new entry-level biologist FTEs. (see Table
17). This constant dollar per acre cost was assumed to apply throughout the period of
implementation.
Reserve Management and Biological Monitoring Costs
Table 17 summarizes estimated per acre costs for reserve management and monitoring in 2019
dollars. Applying these per acre costs (in 2019 dollars) to current acreage under management
and monitoring projects results in annual costs of $1.32 million and $1.23 million, respectively.
The annual reserve management and biological monitoring costs increase as new acquisitions
occur.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 38 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 17 Management and Monitoring Anticipated Costs in
2004 and 2019 Dollars
Endowment Funding
The overall permit period was set at 75 years, ending in 2079. To cover ongoing management
and monitoring costs beyond the duration when mitigation fees will be collected, the
establishment of a non-depleting endowment is required. In other words, the endowment must
be sufficient such that expected average interest revenues (after inflation and transaction costs)
can cover the ongoing costs associated with administration, management and monitoring in
perpetuity. This section summarizes the estimated cost of establishing this endowment under
the different scenarios. A key assumption is that the endowment must be fully established by
Reserve Management1
Acres under Management 40,212
Existing Reserve Management Expenses $1,021,000
Additional Staff Capacity Required3 $294,000
Total Reserve Management Expenses $1,315,000
$/Acre $32.70
$/Acre without additional staff capacity $25.39
Biological Monitoring2
Acres being Monitored 408,820
Existing Biological Monitoring Expenses $1,092,000
Additional Staff Capacity Required3 $140,000
Total Biological Monitoring Expenses $1,232,000
$/Acre $3.01
$/Acre without additional staff capacity $2.67
Item Actual FY 2019
Spending
3. Current staff capacity is not sufficient to accomplish necessary management
and monitoring. An Expanded staff capacity scenario envisions adding 3 FTE mid-
level park rangers to Reserve Management and 2 FTE entry-level biologists to
Reserve Monitoring, with salaries and benfits of $98,000 and $70,000
ti l
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1. Reserve Management costs include Parks & Open Space contract fees,
maintenance of motor vehicles, and HOA dues.
2. Biological Monitoring costs include SAWA contract fees, office and computer
supplies, training, private mileage reimbursement, building rent, and rental
vehicles/fuel.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 39 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
the end of the land acquisition period as it is assumed that no more mitigation fees will be
collected at that time.26
For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that habitat management and habitat
monitoring costs continue in full, while administration costs are reduced by half following the end
of the land acquisition period. All of these costs then continue in perpetuity. As a result and as
shown in Table 18, the endowment is sized to cover the expected annual management and
monitoring costs and 50 percent of the administration costs, totaling $6.8 million (2019 dollars)
once all lands have been acquired.
Table 18 Annual Implementation Cost Estimate (2019$)
Consistent with many regional habitat conservations plans, the average annual net, real
(allowing for inflation and institutional fees) interest rate is assumed to be three (3) percent.27
Under all extension scenarios, the total required endowment funding is $225.2 million. Because
the longer extension periods provide more time for the accrual of interest revenues, the net
endowment cost (that must be funded by mitigation fees) is different for each scenario. Table
19 shows the consistent total endowment funding required by scenario as well as the different
levels of aggregate endowment interest and associated net endowment funding requirement. For
a detailed time-series accounting of endowment funding by extension scenario, see
Appendix II.
26 It is important to note that the RCA has collected a distinct set of endowment funds for situations
where specific conservation activities are required over-and-above the core activities covered by this
endowment calculation.
27 This assumes that the implementing entity can use investment vehicles that may be not be typical
for Riverside County.
Annual Cost
Cost Categories
by Last Year of
Land Acquisition
Period
Adjustment
Ongoing Habitat Management $3,172,063 100%$3,172,063
Ongoing Habitat Monitoring $1,506,776 100%$1,506,776
Administration1 $4,154,811 50%$2,077,406
Total $8,833,650 $6,756,244
1. Adminsitration includes salaries and benefits, accounting, auditing and reporting, contracts, etc.. Assumes less
administration is needed following the land acquisition period; ongoing adminsitrative needs include oversight, auditing
and reporting, and board staffing.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Annual Post-Land
Acquisition Cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 40 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 19 Endowment Funding (2019$), by Extension Scenario
Total Implementation Costs
Implementation costs include land costs, administrative and professional services expenses,
management and monitoring costs, and the required net endowment funding. The remaining
MSHCP implementation costs, as described in detail in the preceding sections, are all estimated
in 2019 constant dollar terms. Under the Baseline/ No Extension scenario, as shown in Figure
9, the $702 million in estimated land acquisition costs make up 72 percent of the total
implementation cost of $974 million. Administrative costs total about 4 percent of total costs,
management and monitoring sum to 3 percent of total implementation costs, and the
endowment constitutes 21 percent of total costs.
Figure 9 Comparison of Costs by Category
Total implementation costs vary by extension scenario. Land acquisition costs are the same for
all scenarios. Administrative, management and monitoring costs increase the longer the
acquisition period is extended, but the endowment funding required decreases the longer the
No Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Total Endowment Funding Required $225,208,133 $225,208,133 $225,208,133 $225,208,133
(Less) Endowment Interest ($25,695,187)($40,679,628)($54,846,349)($68,206,990)
Net Endowment Funding Required $199,512,947 $184,528,506 $170,361,785 $157,001,144
Item
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Land Acqusition
72%
M&M
3%
RCA Staff
2%
Prof Svcs+Misc
2%
Endowment
21%
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 41 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
acquisition period is extended. As shown in Table 20, total implementation costs range from
$890 million to $967 million depending on the extension period. Although total costs over time
increase with longer extension periods the per-year implementation costs decrease with longer
extension periods, as shown in Table 21. For a detailed time-series of all implementation costs
excepting the endowment, see Appendix I.
Table 20 Total Implementation Costs (2019$*), by Extension Scenario
* All costs are provided in constant 2019 dollar terms. Costs will change over time due to inflation and other
factors. These changes will be addressed through the fee indexing/ updating process that will include automatic
inflation-indexed fee changes annually based on the regional Consumer Price Index and periodic comprehensive
updates to the Nexus Study.
Total for Total for Total for Total for
2020 - 2028 2020 - 2033 2020 - 2038 2020 - 2043
No Extension 5-Yr Extension 10-Yr Extension 15-Yr Extension
Land 1 $701,931,902 $701,931,902 $701,931,902 $701,931,902
Management & Monitoring $33,582,193 $51,646,790 $69,711,387 $87,775,983
RCA Staff 2 $20,596,453 $32,038,927 $43,481,401 $54,923,875
Professional Services and Supplies 2 $13,194,561 $20,524,873 $27,855,185 $35,185,497
Loan Repayment 3 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Other Costs 2 4 $3,602,285 $5,603,554 $7,604,824 $9,606,093
Net Endowment Funding Required $199,512,947 $184,528,506 $170,361,785 $157,001,144
Total Costs $974,420,341 $998,274,552 $1,022,946,483 $1,048,424,494
Sources: Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Local Permittee MSHCP
Implementation Costs
1. Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms.
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019
dollars.
3. RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $5 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now
payable in increments of $1 million starting in FY 2018.
4. Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
NOTE: In some cases numbers may not perfectly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 42 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 21 Average Annual Implementation Costs (2019$), by Extension Scenario
2020 - 2028 2020 - 2033 2020 - 2038 2020 - 2043
No Extension 5-Yr Extension 10-Yr Extension 15-Yr Extension
Land 1 $77,992,434 $50,137,993 $36,943,784 $29,247,163
Management & Monitoring $3,731,355 $3,689,056 $3,669,020 $3,657,333
RCA Staff 2 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495
Professional Services and Supplies 2 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062
Loan Repayment 3 $222,222 $142,857 $105,263 $83,333
Other Costs 2 4 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254
Net Endowment Funding Required $22,168,105 $13,180,608 $8,966,410 $6,541,714
Total Costs $108,268,927 $71,305,325 $53,839,289 $43,684,354
3. RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $5 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now
payable in increments of $1 million starting in FY 2018.
4. Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
Average AnnualLocal Permittee MSHCP
Implementation Costs
Sources: Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1. Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms.
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019
dollars.
NOTE: In some cases numbers may not perfectly sum due to rounding.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 43 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
6. RCA NON-FEE REVENUES
MSHCP Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues
The MSHCP forecast an array of revenue sources, in addition to fee revenue, supporting the
conservation program. These sources were anticipated to total about 44 percent of the revenue
for the program, including:
• Transportation funding – includes the Measure A sales tax which is authorized through
2039 and other transportation funding sources such as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fees (TUMF) charged on new development. Note that the MSHCP envisioned up to $121
million of Measure A money to the HCP.
• Other infrastructure projects – funding from this source was not quantified in the MSHCP
but reflected the expectation that local public construction projects such as schools,
administrative facilities, libraries, jails, and other projects like flood control and utility
projects would mitigate the construction through the payment of a per-acre fee.28 Since
MSHCP adoption, the standard contribution has been three to five percent of total project
costs.
• Landfill contributions – Landfill tipping fees have been used in the County since the 1990
for conservation programs. Under county permitting of landfills, the County has committed
to divert portions of tipping fees to MSHCP implementation.
Table 22 and Figure 10 summarizes the revenue forecasts under the MSHCP. Including the fee
revenues, these sources totaled $1.07 billion or an estimated average almost $43 million per
year for 25-years (in 2004 dollars). Excluding fee revenues, a total of $18.84 million in annual
revenues were forecast, including Measure A funding, $10 million each year from other
transportation projects, and $4.0 million from land fill contributions.
As described further below, at this point, the average annual funding from non-fee revenues
sources are well below the MSCHP forecast. Measure A, a voter-approved ½ cent sales tax
measure did provide substantial funding as envisioned (though is now fully used/ allocated) and,
collectively, the other non-fee funding sources are well beyond what was originally envisioned.
28 See Chapter 8.5.1 Funding Sources in the MSHCP.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 44 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 22 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources
Figure 10 2004 MSHCP Anticipated Funding Sources
New Forecast of Non-Fee Revenues
Non-fee revenues to the RCA are projected to be $6.85 million annually in 2019 dollars. This
estimate was derived from a line by line review of the major revenue items for a 3-year period
from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19, projections by collection entities (e.g., TUMF revenue), and
recent dynamics likely to affect the revenue source (e.g., greater diversion of trash to recycling
MSHCP Anticipated Funding Source
Estimate
(millions)
% of
Total
Avg/Yr (millions over 25
years)
Fee Funded Sources:
Cities and County Development Mitigation Fees $539.6 50%$21,584,000
Density Bonus Fees $66.0 6%$2,640,000
Non-Fee Funded Sources $605.6 $24,224,000.0
Public Funding Sources
Local Roads (Measure A)$121.0 11%$4,840,000
Other Transportation $250.0 23%$10,000,000
Other infrastructure Projects unknown 0%$0
El Sobrante Landfill $90.0 8%$3,600,000
County Landfills $10.0 1%$400,000
Eagle Mountain Landfill unknown 0%$0
New Regional funding unknown 0%$0
Non-Fee Funded Sources $471.0 $18,840,000
Total, Local Funds $1,076.6 100%$43,064,000
Fee funded
56%
Local Roads
11%
Other
Transportation
23%
El Sobrante/Other
County Landfills
10%
Non-Fee Funded
44%
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 45 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
will likely reduce tipping fees). The estimates have been inflated from a three-year average to
2019 dollars, as detailed in Table 23.
Table 23 Annual Non-Fee Revenue Projection (2019$s)
Non-Fee Revenue Item
RCA FY16/17- 18/19
3-Year Average of
Actuals
CPI Adjusted to
2019$
Transportation Mitigation1
TUMF Revenue-Developer Fees $950,000 $979,637
Subtotal $950,000 $979,637
Tipping Fee $3,865,728 $3,986,326
Public Project Mitigation
PSE Mitigation Fee2 NA $500,000
Other Gov MSHCP Infrastructure $284,570 $293,448
Other Gov MSHCP Civic Projects $93,629 $96,550
Flood Control District $293,084 $302,227
Subtotal $671,283 $1,192,225
Other Revenue
Interest and Other Sources $467,073 $481,644
Rents $80,531 $83,043
Joint Project Review Fees $124,762 $128,654
Subtotal $672,365 $693,341
Total Revenue NA $6,851,529
1. All Measure A funding was provided prior to 2020 and the associated obligations have
been met.
2. Participating Special Entities fees. This does not include Developer Mitigation Fees.
These fees vary widely year over year, $500,000 is used as an annual average per the
recommendation of RCA staff.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 46 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
7. MITIGATION FEE CALCULATION
The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee is based on a generally similar methodology to the
Original Nexus Study that ensures the fee level is proportional to the development impact. This
methodology looks at the remaining conservation requirements associated with Local Permittee
obligations under the MSHCP and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing
Agreement, determines the remaining Local Permittee implementation cost, subtracts out
reasonable estimates of non-fee revenues and other contributions, to determine the overall fee-
funding obligation. This obligation is then divided among the new development forecast to
determine the required mitigation fee. In others words, the original 2003 and updated 2020
Local Development Mitigation Fee estimates are the outcome of the following formula (the 2003
and 2020 Nexus Studies differ in their process of allocating funding required between land uses):
1. Implementation Costs
minus
2. Non-Fee Funding
equals
3. Outstanding Funding Required
divided by
4. Development Forecast
equals
5. Local Development Mitigation Fee Schedule
Table 24 summarizes the estimated Net Implementation Costs, Expected Acres of Development,
and the associated per gross acre mitigation fee. As shown, the average mitigation fee per gross
acre decreases with each extension as similar levels of net implementation costs are spread
across more development. Tables 25 through 28 provide the detailed calculations that
determine the total net MSHCP implementation costs shown in Table 24. As noted in
Chapter 1, for residential development, the per-gross-acre fee is translated into a per-unit fee
schedule for administrative continuity.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 47 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 24 MSHCP Implementation Costs and Per Acre Mitigation Fees
Fee Per Acre No Extension
5-Year
Extension
10-Year
Extension
15-Year
Extension
Net Cost $912,756,583 $902,353,150 $892,767,438 $883,987,805
Acres of Development
Residential 14,026 21,818 29,611 37,403
Nonresidential 6,239 9,705 13,171 16,637
Total 20,265 31,523 42,782 54,040
Mitigation Fee per Acre $45,041 $28,625 $20,868 $16,358
Sources: Southern California Association of Governments; Western Riverside County RCA; Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 48 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 25 Recommended Fee Level—No Extension
Total for
2020 - 2029
Item (Years 17 - 25)9 yrs
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 6,310 acres na
(less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 1,111 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 5,199 acres na
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)$701,931,902 $77,992,434 72.0%
Management & Monitoring $33,582,193 $3,731,355 3.4%
RCA Staff (2)$20,596,453 $2,288,495 2.1%
Professional Services and Supplies (2)$13,194,561 $1,466,062 1.4%
Loan Repayment (3)$2,000,000 $222,222 0.2%
Other Costs (2) (4)$3,602,285 $400,254 0.4%
Net Endowment Funding Required $199,512,947 $22,168,105 20.5%
Total Costs $974,420,341 $108,268,927 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6)$10,730,025 $1,192,225 1.4%
Transportation Mitigation (7)$8,816,731 $979,637 1.1%
Tipping Fees $35,876,934 $3,986,326 4.6%
Other Revenues (8)$6,240,068 $693,341 0.8%
Total Selected Revenues $61,663,758 $6,851,529 8.0%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $912,756,583 $101,417,398 93.7%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development)
Growth Projection:
Development 2020 - 2028 Annual
Residential Units 79,000 8,778
Residential Acres 14,026 1,558
Non-Residential Acres 6,239 693
Total Acres 20,265 2,252
Mitigation Fee $45,041 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost.
(4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
(5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
(7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.
Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
% of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
Average
Annual
(6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues.
(3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now
payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years.
(2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019
dollars.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 49 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 26 Recommended Fee Level—5-Year Extension
Total for
2020 - 2034
Item (Years 17 - 30)14 yrs
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 4,056 acres na
(less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 714 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 3,342 acres na
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)$701,931,902 $50,137,993 70.3%
Management & Monitoring $51,646,790 $3,689,056 5.2%
RCA Staff (2)$32,038,927 $2,288,495 3.2%
Professional Services and Supplies (2)$20,524,873 $1,466,062 2.1%
Loan Repayment (3)$2,000,000 $142,857 0.2%
Other Costs (2) (4)$5,603,554 $400,254 0.6%
Net Endowment Funding Required $184,528,506 $13,180,608 18.5%
Total Costs $998,274,552 $71,305,325 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6)$16,691,150 $1,192,225 2.1%
Transportation Mitigation (7)$13,714,915 $979,637 1.7%
Tipping Fees $55,808,564 $3,986,326 6.9%
Other Revenues (8)$9,706,772 $693,341 1.2%
Total Selected Revenues $95,921,402 $6,851,529 11.8%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $902,353,150 $64,453,796 90.4%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development)
Growth Projection:
Development 2020 - 2033 Annual
Residential Units (4.2 DU/Acres)122,456 8,747
Residential Acres 21,818 1,558
Non-Residential Acres 9,705 693
Total Acres 31,523 2,252
Mitigation Fee $28,625 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost.
(4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
(5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
(7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.
Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
% of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
Average
Annual
(6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues.
(3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now
payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years.
(2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019
dollars.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 50 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 27 Recommended Fee Level—10-Year Extension
Total for
2020 - 2039
Item (Years 17 - 35)19 yrs
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 2,989 acres na
(less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 526 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 2,463 acres na
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)$701,931,902 $36,943,784 68.6%
Management & Monitoring $69,711,387 $3,669,020 6.8%
RCA Staff (2)$43,481,401 $2,288,495 4.3%
Professional Services and Supplies (2)$27,855,185 $1,466,062 2.7%
Loan Repayment (3)$2,000,000 $105,263 0.2%
Other Costs (2) (4)$7,604,824 $400,254 0.7%
Net Endowment Funding Required $170,361,785 $8,966,410 16.7%
Total Costs $1,022,946,483 $53,839,289 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6)$22,652,275 $1,192,225 2.7%
Transportation Mitigation (7)$18,613,099 $979,637 2.2%
Tipping Fees $75,740,195 $3,986,326 8.9%
Other Revenues (8)$13,173,476 $693,341 1.5%
Total Selected Revenues $130,179,045 $6,851,529 15.3%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $892,767,438 $46,987,760 87.3%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development)
Growth Projection:
Development 2020 - 2038 Annual
Residential Units (4.2 DU/Acres)166,000 8,737
Residential Acres 29,611 1,558
Non-Residential Acres 13,171 693
Total Acres 42,782 2,252
Mitigation Fee $20,868 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost.
(4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
(5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
(7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.
Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues.
Average
Annual
(2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019
dollars.
% of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
(3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now
payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 51 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
Table 28 Recommended Fee Level—15-Year Extension
Total for
2020 - 2044
Item (Years 17 - 40)24 yrs
Local Permittee Land Requirements
Preservation Requirement 56,788 acres 2,366 acres na
(less) HANS Dedication 10,000 acres 417 acres na
Local Permittee Acquisition 46,788 acres 1,950 acres na
Local Permittee MSHCP Implementation Costs
Land (1)$701,931,902 $29,247,163 67.0%
Management & Monitoring $87,775,983 $3,657,333 8.4%
RCA Staff (2)$54,923,875 $2,288,495 5.2%
Professional Services and Supplies (2)$35,185,497 $1,466,062 3.4%
Loan Repayment (3)$2,000,000 $83,333 0.2%
Other Costs (2) (4)$9,606,093 $400,254 0.9%
Net Endowment Funding Required $157,001,144 $6,541,714 15.0%
Total Costs $1,048,424,494 $43,684,354 100.0%
Offsetting Revenues (5)
(exc. Private Development Mitigation)
Public Project Mitigation (6)$28,613,400 $1,192,225 3.2%
Transportation Mitigation (7)$23,511,283 $979,637 2.6%
Tipping Fees $95,671,825 $3,986,326 10.7%
Other Revenues (8)$16,640,181 $693,341 1.9%
Total Selected Revenues $164,436,689 $6,851,529 18.4%
Funding Required from Private Development Mitigation
Net Cost $883,987,805 $36,832,825 84.3%
Mitigation Fee Estimates (per gross acre of development)
Growth Projection:
Development 2020 - 2043 Annual
Residential Units 210,000 8,750
Residential Acres 37,403 1,558
Non-Residential Acres 16,637 693
Total Acres 54,040 2,252
Mitigation Fee $16,358 per acre
(1) Land value estimates at $14,288 per acre in 2019 dollar terms plus a 5% transaction cost.
(4) Includes rents and all other miscellaneous expenses.
(5) RCA Revenues are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
(7) Includes TUMF fees.
(8) Includes interest and other sources, rents, and joint project review fees.
Sources: MSHCP; RCA; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
(6) Includes Flood Control District, PSE mitigation payments, and other government MSHCP infrastructure & civic project revenues.
(3) RCA has “Other Long Term Obligations” totaling $2 million, which was a loan received from the County in FY 2012/13 and is now
payable in increments of $1 million over the course of two years.
(2) RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019
dollars.
Average
Annual
% of
Total Cost/
Funding Need
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 52 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
8. MITIGATION FEE ACT (NEXUS) FINDINGS
Mitigation fees are utilized in California to finance public facilities necessary to mitigate impacts
stemming from new development. In 1987, the California Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee
Act to provide a framework for the application and administration of such fees. Current
prevailing practice among the majority of approved and permitted regional multiple-species
Habitat Conservation Plans is that any habitat mitigation fees are to be adopted by the relevant
jurisdictions (cities and Counties) consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act.29 As discussed further
in Chapter 9, the adoption of fees under the Mitigation Fee Act includes a number of auditing
and reporting requirements.
The Mitigation Fee Act, defined in California Government Code Sections 66000 to 66025, requires
all public agencies to document five findings when establishing or increasing a fee as a condition
for new development. These findings were made when the Western Riverside County MSHCP
Local Development Mitigation Fees were first justified and established.30
This Chapter of the Western Riverside Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study was prepared
to describe how the proposed increase in the Local Development Mitigation Fee satisfies the five
statutory findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act and is based on the appropriate nexus
between new development and the imposition of a mitigation fee. The five statutory findings
required for the establishment of a mitigation fee are summarized in the sections below and
supported by the technical analysis in the prior chapters of this Study.
Purpose of Fee
Identify the purpose of the fee. (66001(a)(1))
The purpose of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is to contribute to the funding required to
implement the MSCHP and, as a result, help maintain the incidental take permits for new private
and public development in Western Riverside County under the federal and State Endangered
Species Acts. Maintaining the incidental take permit is necessary to allow for future development,
and without the development community paying for the cost of the MSHCP, individual applicants
will need to apply independently for development approval under federal and State law if the
project impacts a threaten or endangered species. The federal Endangered Species Act
specifically requires that the applicant for incidental take permit “ensure that adequate funding
for the plan will be provided.”31 In addition, the Local Development Mitigation Fee helps provide
the regional benefit of streamlined economic development in Western Riverside County as well as
29 In addition to the current Western Riverside County habitat mitigation fee, see also the Coachella
Valley habitat mitigation fee, the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open
Space Fee, and the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP mitigation fee.
30 See the Final Mitigation Nexus Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, published July 1, 2003.
31 See Section 1539(a)(2)Biii of the federal Endangered Species Act.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 53 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
the provision of contiguous open spaces that will serve as a community amenity to residents,
workers, and visitors.
Use of Fee Revenues
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities
shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital
improvement plan as specific in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or
specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public
facilities for which the fee is charged. (66001(a)(2)).
The MSHCP is the public document that outlines the actions required as a whole and the
particular set of actions required by the Local Permittees (and the Regional Conservation Agency
as their agent) to obtain incidental take permits—associated with State and federal Endangered
Species Act requirements—for new public and private development in Western Riverside County.
Failure to meet the requirements of the MSHCP will result in an inability to obtain or maintain
incidental take permits through the MSHCP, which would require future development to secure
individual take authorization if the project impacts a threaten or endangered species.
Revenues from the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be used, in conjunction with other local
and regional funding sources, to fund the conservation actions identified as the responsibility of
Local Permittees in the MSHCP. The revenue from the Local Development Mitigation Fee will be
used to help fund the appropriate habitat acquisition (land acquisition and associated transaction
costs), maintenance and monitoring of habitat land (preserve management, monitoring, and
adaptive management), and program management, administration, and oversight activities and
costs.32 Chapter 3 of this report describes the Local Permittee conservation requirements,
progress to date, and the remaining actions required under the MSHCP.
Relationship
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed. (66001(a)(3)).
The implementation of the MSHCP, and the mitigation fee as a fundamental part of it, will benefit
all new development by mitigating their collective impacts on covered species and associated
habitat. All new public and private development in the Plan area will affect habitat and species
either directly, indirectly, or as a cumulative effect. New infrastructure development, for
example, in addition to its direct effects, will support new development on other parcels and
other locations in the Plan Area. Similarly, new private development will require new
infrastructure and also result in additional demand for new developments through linkages—for
32 Consistent with the interpretation applied to the majority of permitted and approved regional,
multiple-species Habitat Conservation Plans in California and guidance from RCA Counsel, the Local
Development Mitigation Fee is assumed to fund its proportionate share (as determined by the
technical analysis and constrained by the statutory requirements) of applicable MSHCP implementation
costs including, but also limited to, habitat acquisition costs (and associated transaction costs), the
costs of managing and monitoring the habitat preserves in perpetuity, and the administrative and
other costs of managing the overall program.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 54 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
example, the need for new housing to accommodate new workers at commercial developments
or the need for new retail developments to serve new residents at residential developments.
In other words, all new development in Western Riverside County will benefit from the incidental
take permits obtained through the MSHCP and via the use of the mitigation fee revenues.
In addition, the incidental take permits are necessary to permit any future development within
the Plan Area, and in order to obtain or maintain such incidental take permits, the MSHCP must
be fully funded. Because funding the MSHCP is required in order to allow for future development
under the MSHCP, there is a direct relationship between the proposed use of the mitigation fee
and development within the Plan Area.
Need
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the
type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (66001(a)(4)).
Without new development, no MSHCP would be necessary and no further habitat conservation
would be required under the federal and State Endangered Species Acts. To allow for any future
development under the Plan, the MSHCP must be fully funded. New development in the Plan
Area, as noted above, will directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect species and habitat in
Western Riverside County. Because of this, development of the MSHCP was undertaken to
provide a regional, streamlined approach to benefit future development of all types in Western
Riverside County, including the development and improvements envisioned under the numerous
General Plans and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The requirements of the
MSHCP (habitat acquisition, management and monitoring, program administration) are a direct
result of the regional approach to mitigation that is engendered by all new development in the
Plan Area under the pertinent environmental regulations. Meeting the requirements of the
MSHCP is necessary to obtain the necessary federal authorization to develop within the Plan
Area.
Proportionality
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of
the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee
is imposed. (66001(b)).
The MSHCP includes detailed conservation requirements based on the scientific evaluations that
form the basis of the MSHCP. Based on these evaluations, conservation responsibilities were
allocated between the Local Permittees and other agencies, such as the State and federal
governments. The Local Development Mitigation Fee appropriately provides funding towards the
fulfillment of the Local Permittee conservation requirements. Furthermore, the Local Permittee
obligations are not fully funded through the Local Development Mitigation Fee revenues. Other
local and regional funding sources, such as the Measure A sales tax and tipping fees, provide
additional mitigation and/or offsetting revenues that reduce the overall cost allocation to the
Local Development Mitigation Fee Program. In addition, consistent with the relationship between
new development in Western Riverside County and the need for the public facilities (conservation
program) described above, proportional attribution between new development is ensured
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 55 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
through the determination of a consistent per gross acre Local Development Mitigation Fee.33 As
a result, the Local Development Mitigation Fee level calculations are carefully determined to fund
only the proportionate (or less than) conservation costs attributable to the new development on
which the fee is imposed and to allocate the fee levels proportionally across all new
development. It is this process of careful calculation based on the requirements of the MSHCP
that is the subject of a substantial portion of this Nexus Study (see Chapters 2 through 7).
33 Determining habitat mitigation fees on a gross acre basis is the clearest way of ensuring
proportionate cost allocations among new developments and is a common practice among adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans. For purposes of implementation/administrative consistency, for
residential uses, the per-gross-acre fee is translated into per unit fees for different density categories.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 56 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
9. FEE IMPLEMENTATION
The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee must be implemented consistent with the MSHCP
(and associated Incidental Take Permit and Implementing Agreement) as well as the California
Mitigation Fee Act. A detailed set of guidance is included in the Fee Implementation Handbook to
support clarity and specificity in the implementation of the updated fee program by Local
Permittees. The sections below summarize some of the key implementation and administration
actions to be consistent with the requirements.
Adoption of Revised LDMF
• Consistent with the MSHCP and associated documents, each Local Permittee (i.e., all
participating jurisdictions) must adopt an updated LDMF ordinance and a fee resolution
establishing the revised fee level as prescribed by the Mitigation Fee Act.
• Consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act, the revised ordinance and associated fee resolution
will become effective after a public hearing and 60 days.
• RCA Legal Counsel will prepare a Fee Update Ordinance and Resolution to facilitate the
consistent adoption of the updated LDMF by Local Permittees.
Securing Supplemental Funding
The revised Local Development Mitigation Fee is set at the level that would cover the Local
Permittee cost obligations once expected non-fee revenues are subtracted out. To the extent
any discounts/exemptions are provided to new Western Riverside County development below the
updated fee level, additional funding will be required to backfill the fee revenue losses. To the
extent, these revenues do not make up for any fee discounts provided, other sources of funding
will need to be sought by the RCA and the Local Permittees to fulfill their Plan obligations. At the
same time, if new substantial funding sources become available to the RCA for Local Permittee
obligations, the funding required through fees may decrease, in turn reducing the required fee
levels through a new update.
Annual Review
The Mitigation Fee Act (at Gov. C. §§ 66001(c), 66006(b)(1)) stipulates that each local agency
that requires payment of a fee make specific information available to the public annually within
180 days of the last day of the fiscal year. In this case, the RCA can play this role on behalf of
the Local Permittees. This information includes the following:
• A description of the type of fee in the account.
• The amount of the fee (the mitigation fee schedule).
• The beginning and ending balance of the fund.
• The amount of fees collected and interest earned.
• Identification of the improvements constructed.
• The total cost of the improvements constructed.
• The fees expended to construct the improvement.
• The percentage of total costs funded by the fee.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Nexus Fee Study Update
Final Report October 2020
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 57 C:\Users\ktraynor\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\YAAP6MDD\NexusStudy_Final_23Oct2020.docx
If sufficient fees have been collected to fund specific improvement cost, the agency must specify
the approximate date for the cost of that improvement. Because of the dynamic nature of
growth and MSHCP implementation costs and consistent with current practice, the RCA should
continue to monitor progress towards MSHCP goals. The overall adequacy of the fee revenues
and other available funding in meeting these goals should be reviewed annually.
Surplus Funds
The Mitigation Fee Act also requires that if any portion of a fee remains unexpended or
uncommitted in an account for 5 years or more after deposit of the fee, the RCA, acting for the
Local Permittees, shall make findings once each year (1) to identify the purpose to which the fee
is to be put, (2) to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for
which it was charged, (3) to identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete
financing of incomplete improvements, and (4) to designate the approximate dates on which the
funding identified in (3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate fund (§66001(d)).
If adequate funding has been collected for specific investments, an approximate date must be
specified as to when the cost of the investment will be incurred. If the findings show no need for
the unspent funds, or if the conditions discussed above are not met, and the administrative costs
of the refund do not exceed the refund itself, the local agency that has collected the funds must
refund them (Gov. C §66001(e)(f)).
Annual and Periodic Updates
Consistent with the current practice, the Fee Ordinance should allow an automatic annual
adjustment to the fees based on the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Consumer Price Index
(CPI) or a similar inflation factor. In addition, a more comprehensive update should be
conducted required periodically. The Nexus Study and the technical information it contains
should be reviewed periodically by the RCA (every five years is recommended) to identify any
necessary refinements to the Local Development Mitigation Fees to ensure adequate funding to
implement the MSHCP. Under certain circumstances, the RCA may wish to conduct a Nexus
Study update sooner than after five years. For example, to the extent there are significant and
unexpected changes in implementation costs, in the level of non-fee funding, and/ or the level of
fee-paying private development over time, a more immediate fee update may be appropriate.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
APPENDIX I:
Detailed Time Series of Implementation Costs
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
All Implementation Costs Over Time – No Extension
Factors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310 6,310
(less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0
Total Local 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 5,060 6,310
State/Fed 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821 3,821
Total 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 8,881 10,131
Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1 45,272 50,332 55,391 60,451 65,511 70,571 75,630 80,690 87,000
State/Fed 25,429 29,251 33,072 36,893 40,715 44,536 48,357 52,179 56,000
Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000
Total 71,951 82,082 92,213 102,344 112,476 122,607 132,738 142,869 153,000
Management and Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000
ARL RCA State 25,429 29,251 33,072 36,893 40,715 44,536 48,357 52,179 56,000
Total 307,429 311,251 315,072 318,893 322,715 326,536 330,357 334,179 338,000
Local
PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
ARL RCA RCA 46,522 52,832 59,141 65,451 71,761 78,071 84,380 90,690 97,000
Total 111,522 117,832 124,141 130,451 136,761 143,071 149,380 155,690 162,000
Total Acres under RCA Management 46,522 52,832 59,141 65,451 71,761 78,071 84,380 90,690 97,000
Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 418,951 429,082 439,213 449,344 459,476 469,607 479,738 489,869 500,000
COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $72,294,065 $90,154,055
Land Transaction Costs 5%of acquisition costs $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $3,614,703 $4,507,703
Total, Land Acquisition Costs $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $75,908,768 $94,661,758
Local, ARL, Cumulative $75,908,768 $151,817,536 $227,726,304 $303,635,072 $379,543,840 $455,452,608 $531,361,376 $607,270,144 $701,931,902
Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,521,340 $1,727,681 $1,934,021 $2,140,361 $2,346,702 $2,553,042 $2,759,382 $2,965,723 $3,172,063
Management Cumulative $1,521,340 $3,249,021 $5,183,042 $7,323,403 $9,670,105 $12,223,147 $14,982,530 $17,948,252 $21,120,315
Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,262,531 $1,293,061 $1,323,592 $1,354,122 $1,384,653 $1,415,184 $1,445,714 $1,476,245 $1,506,776
Monitoring Cumulative $1,262,531 $2,555,592 $3,879,184 $5,233,306 $6,617,959 $8,033,143 $9,478,857 $10,955,102 $12,461,878
Endowment Costs
Net Endowment Funding, Annual $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105
Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $22,168,105 $44,336,210 $66,504,316 $88,672,421 $110,840,526 $133,008,631 $155,176,736 $177,344,842 $199,512,947
Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495
Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062
Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254
Total Annual $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811
Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299
TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $106,015,555 $106,252,426 $105,489,297 $105,726,168 $105,963,039 $106,199,910 $106,436,781 $106,673,652 $125,663,513
TOTAL Cumulative $106,015,555 $212,267,981 $317,757,279 $423,483,447 $529,446,486 $635,646,396 $742,083,177 $848,756,829 $974,420,341
1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.
3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.
End of:
Reserve Summary Financial Responsibility
Habitat Lands/
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
All Implementation Costs Over Time – 5 Year Extension
Factors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056
(less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Local 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 2,806 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056 4,056
State/Fed 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457 2,457
Total 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 5,263 6,513 6,513 6,513 6,513 6,513 6,513
Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1 43,018 45,825 48,631 51,437 54,243 57,050 59,856 62,662 66,719 70,775 74,831 78,887 82,944 87,000
State/Fed 24,065 26,521 28,978 31,434 33,891 36,347 38,804 41,261 43,717 46,174 48,630 51,087 53,543 56,000
Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total 68,333 74,846 81,359 87,871 94,384 100,897 107,410 113,923 120,436 126,949 133,461 139,974 146,487 153,000
Management and Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000
ARL RCA State 24,065 26,521 28,978 31,434 33,891 36,347 38,804 41,261 43,717 46,174 48,630 51,087 53,543 56,000
Total 306,065 308,521 310,978 313,434 315,891 318,347 320,804 323,261 325,717 328,174 330,630 333,087 335,543 338,000
Local
PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
ARL RCA RCA 44,268 48,325 52,381 56,437 60,493 64,550 68,606 72,662 76,719 80,775 84,831 88,887 92,944 97,000
Total 109,268 113,325 117,381 121,437 125,493 129,550 133,606 137,662 141,719 145,775 149,831 153,887 157,944 162,000
Total Acres under RCA Management 44,268 48,325 52,381 56,437 60,493 64,550 68,606 72,662 76,719 80,775 84,831 88,887 92,944 97,000
Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 415,333 421,846 428,359 434,871 441,384 447,897 454,410 460,923 467,436 473,949 480,461 486,974 493,487 500,000
COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $40,096,188 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178 $57,956,178
Land Transaction Costs 5%of acquisition costs $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,004,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809 $2,897,809
Total, Land Acquisition Costs $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $42,100,997 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987 $60,853,987
Local, ARL, Cumulative $42,100,997 $84,201,995 $126,302,992 $168,403,990 $210,504,987 $252,605,985 $294,706,982 $336,807,979 $397,661,967 $458,515,954 $519,369,941 $580,223,928 $641,077,915 $701,931,902
Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,447,647 $1,580,295 $1,712,942 $1,845,589 $1,978,237 $2,110,884 $2,243,532 $2,376,179 $2,508,826 $2,641,474 $2,774,121 $2,906,768 $3,039,416 $3,172,063
Management Cumulative $1,447,647 $3,027,942 $4,740,884 $6,586,474 $8,564,710 $10,675,595 $12,919,126 $15,295,305 $17,804,131 $20,445,605 $23,219,726 $26,126,494 $29,165,910 $32,337,973
Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,251,627 $1,271,254 $1,290,880 $1,310,507 $1,330,134 $1,349,761 $1,369,388 $1,389,015 $1,408,641 $1,428,268 $1,447,895 $1,467,522 $1,487,149 $1,506,776
Monitoring Cumulative $1,251,627 $2,522,880 $3,813,761 $5,124,268 $6,454,402 $7,804,163 $9,173,551 $10,562,566 $11,971,207 $13,399,476 $14,847,371 $16,314,893 $17,802,041 $19,308,817
Endowment Costs
Net Endowment Funding, Annual $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608
Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $13,180,608 $26,361,215 $39,541,823 $52,722,430 $65,903,038 $79,083,645 $92,264,253 $105,444,860 $118,625,468 $131,806,076 $144,986,683 $158,167,291 $171,347,898 $184,528,506
Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495
Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062
Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254
Total Annual Costs $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811
Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $47,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355
TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $63,135,690 $63,287,964 $62,440,239 $62,592,513 $62,744,787 $62,897,061 $63,049,335 $63,201,610 $82,106,873 $82,259,148 $82,411,422 $82,563,696 $82,715,970 $82,868,244
TOTAL Cumulative $63,135,690 $126,423,655 $188,863,893 $251,456,406 $314,201,193 $377,098,254 $440,147,590 $503,349,199 $585,456,073 $667,715,220 $750,126,642 $832,690,338 $915,406,308 $998,274,552
1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.
3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.
End of:
Reserve Summary
Financial Responsibility
Habitat Lands/
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
All Implementation Costs Over Time – 10 Year Extension
Factors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038
ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989
(less) Anheuser Busch purchase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Local 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 1,739 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989 2,989
State/Fed 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810 1,810
Total 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 3,549 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799 4,799
Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1 41,951 43,690 45,429 47,167 48,906 50,645 52,384 54,123 57,112 60,100 63,089 66,078 69,067 72,056 75,045 78,033 81,022 84,011 87,000
State/Fed 23,418 25,228 27,038 28,848 30,659 32,469 34,279 36,089 37,899 39,709 41,519 43,329 45,139 46,949 48,760 50,570 52,380 54,190 56,000
Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total 66,619 71,418 76,217 81,016 85,815 90,614 95,413 100,212 105,011 109,809 114,608 119,407 124,206 129,005 133,804 138,603 143,402 148,201 153,000
Management and Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000
ARL RCA State 23,418 25,228 27,038 28,848 30,659 32,469 34,279 36,089 37,899 39,709 41,519 43,329 45,139 46,949 48,760 50,570 52,380 54,190 56,000
Total 305,418 307,228 309,038 310,848 312,659 314,469 316,279 318,089 319,899 321,709 323,519 325,329 327,139 328,949 330,760 332,570 334,380 336,190 338,000
Local
PQP RCA Non-RCA Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
ARL RCA RCA 43,201 46,190 49,179 52,167 55,156 58,145 61,134 64,123 67,112 70,100 73,089 76,078 79,067 82,056 85,045 88,033 91,022 94,011 97,000
Total 108,201 111,190 114,179 117,167 120,156 123,145 126,134 129,123 132,112 135,100 138,089 141,078 144,067 147,056 150,045 153,033 156,022 159,011 162,000
Total Acres under RCA Management 43,201 46,190 49,179 52,167 55,156 58,145 61,134 64,123 67,112 70,100 73,089 76,078 79,067 82,056 85,045 88,033 91,022 94,011 97,000
Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 413,619 418,418 423,217 428,016 432,815 437,614 442,413 447,212 452,011 456,809 461,608 466,407 471,206 476,005 480,804 485,603 490,402 495,201 500,000
COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL, Annual $14,288 $/Acre $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $24,844,562 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552 $42,704,552
Land Transaction Costs 5%of acquisition
costs $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $1,242,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228 $2,135,228
Total, Land Acquisition Costs $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $26,086,790 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780 $44,839,780
Local, ARL, Cumulative $26,086,790 $52,173,581 $78,260,371 $104,347,161 $130,433,952 $156,520,742 $182,607,532 $208,694,323 $253,534,102 $298,373,882 $343,213,662 $388,053,442 $432,893,222 $477,733,002 $522,572,782 $567,412,562 $612,252,342 $657,092,122 $701,931,902
Management and Monitoring Costs
Management, Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,412,740 $1,510,480 $1,608,220 $1,705,961 $1,803,701 $1,901,441 $1,999,181 $2,096,921 $2,194,661 $2,292,402 $2,390,142 $2,487,882 $2,585,622 $2,683,362 $2,781,102 $2,878,843 $2,976,583 $3,074,323 $3,172,063
Management Cumulative $1,412,740 $2,923,220 $4,531,441 $6,237,402 $8,041,102 $9,942,543 $11,941,725 $14,038,646 $16,233,307 $18,525,709 $20,915,851 $23,403,733 $25,989,355 $28,672,717 $31,453,819 $34,332,662 $37,309,245 $40,383,568 $43,555,631
Monitoring, Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,246,462 $1,260,924 $1,275,386 $1,289,847 $1,304,309 $1,318,771 $1,333,233 $1,347,695 $1,362,157 $1,376,619 $1,391,081 $1,405,542 $1,420,004 $1,434,466 $1,448,928 $1,463,390 $1,477,852 $1,492,314 $1,506,776
Monitoring Cumulative $1,246,462 $2,507,386 $3,782,771 $5,072,619 $6,376,928 $7,695,699 $9,028,932 $10,376,627 $11,738,784 $13,115,403 $14,506,484 $15,912,026 $17,332,030 $18,766,497 $20,215,425 $21,678,815 $23,156,667 $24,648,980 $26,155,756
Endowment Costs
Net Endowment Funding, Annual $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410
Net Endowment Funding, Cumulative $8,966,410 $17,932,819 $26,899,229 $35,865,639 $44,832,049 $53,798,458 $62,764,868 $71,731,278 $80,697,687 $89,664,097 $98,630,507 $107,596,917 $116,563,326 $125,529,736 $134,496,146 $143,462,556 $152,428,965 $161,395,375 $170,361,785
Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495
Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062
Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254
Total Annual Costs $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811
Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $47,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355 $64,322,166 $68,476,977 $72,631,788 $76,786,599 $80,941,410
TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $42,867,213 $42,979,415 $42,091,617 $42,203,819 $42,316,021 $42,428,223 $42,540,425 $42,652,627 $61,517,819 $61,630,021 $61,742,223 $61,854,425 $61,966,627 $62,078,829 $62,191,031 $62,303,233 $62,415,435 $62,527,637 $62,639,839
TOTAL Cumulative $42,867,213 $85,846,628 $127,938,245 $170,142,065 $212,458,086 $254,886,309 $297,426,735 $340,079,362 $401,597,181 $463,227,202 $524,969,425 $586,823,850 $648,790,477 $710,869,307 $773,060,338 $835,363,571 $897,779,006 $960,306,644 $1,022,946,483
1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.
3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.
Habitat Lands/
End of:
Reserve Summary Financial Responsibility
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
All Implementation Costs Over Time – 15 Year Extension
Factors 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Cost Items 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043
ACRES
Land Acuisition Costs
Land Acquisition (Annual)
Local 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366
(less) HANS/JPR Dedications -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 -1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Local 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 1,116 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366 2,366
State/Fed 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433 1,433
Total 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,549 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799 3,799
Land Acquisition (Cumulative)
Local 1 41,328 42,444 43,561 44,677 45,793 46,909 48,025 49,141 51,508 53,874 56,240 58,606 60,972 63,338 65,705 68,071 70,437 72,803 75,169 77,535 79,902 82,268 84,634 87,000
State/Fed 23,041 24,474 25,907 27,340 28,773 30,206 31,639 33,072 34,505 35,938 37,371 38,804 40,237 41,670 43,103 44,536 45,969 47,402 48,835 50,268 51,701 53,134 54,567 56,000
Local - HANS/JPR Dedications 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 6,250 7,500 8,750 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total 65,619 69,418 73,218 77,017 80,816 84,615 88,414 92,213 96,013 99,812 103,611 107,410 111,209 115,008 118,808 122,607 126,406 130,205 134,004 137,803 141,603 145,402 149,201 153,000
Management and Monitoring Costs
Monitoring Management
State/ Federal
PQP RCA State/ Fed 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000 282,000
ARL RCA State 23,041 24,474 25,907 27,340 28,773 30,206 31,639 33,072 34,505 35,938 37,371 38,804 40,237 41,670 43,103 44,536 45,969 47,402 48,835 50,268 51,701 53,134 54,567 56,000
Total 305,041 306,474 307,907 309,340 310,773 312,206 313,639 315,072 316,505 317,938 319,371 320,804 322,237 323,670 325,103 326,536 327,969 329,402 330,835 332,268 333,701 335,134 336,567 338,000
Local
PQP RCA Non-RCA
Local 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
ARL RCA RCA 42,578 44,944 47,311 49,677 52,043 54,409 56,775 59,141 61,508 63,874 66,240 68,606 70,972 73,338 75,705 78,071 80,437 82,803 85,169 87,535 89,902 92,268 94,634 97,000
Total 107,578 109,944 112,311 114,677 117,043 119,409 121,775 124,141 126,508 128,874 131,240 133,606 135,972 138,338 140,705 143,071 145,437 147,803 150,169 152,535 154,902 157,268 159,634 162,000
Total Acres under RCA Management 42,578 44,944 47,311 49,677 52,043 54,409 56,775 59,141 61,508 63,874 66,240 68,606 70,972 73,338 75,705 78,071 80,437 82,803 85,169 87,535 89,902 92,268 94,634 97,000
Total Acres under RCA Monitoring 412,619 416,418 420,218 424,017 427,816 431,615 435,414 439,213 443,013 446,812 450,611 454,410 458,209 462,008 465,808 469,607 473,406 477,205 481,004 484,803 488,603 492,402 496,201 500,000
COSTS (all constant 2019 dollars)
Land Acquisition Costs
Local, ARL,
Annual $14,288 $/Acre $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $15,947,780 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771 $33,807,771
Land Transaction
Costs 5%of acquisition
costs $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $797,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389 $1,690,389
Total, Land Acquisition Costs $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $16,745,170 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159 $35,498,159
Local, ARL,
Cumulative $16,745,170 $33,490,339 $50,235,509 $66,980,678 $83,725,848 $100,471,017 $117,216,187 $133,961,356 $169,459,515 $204,957,674 $240,455,833 $275,953,992 $311,452,152 $346,950,311 $382,448,470 $417,946,629 $453,444,788 $488,942,947 $524,441,106 $559,939,265 $595,437,424 $630,935,583 $666,433,743 $701,931,902
Management and Monitoring Costs
Management,
Annual $32.70 $/Acre $1,392,378 $1,469,755 $1,547,133 $1,624,511 $1,701,888 $1,779,266 $1,856,643 $1,934,021 $2,011,399 $2,088,776 $2,166,154 $2,243,532 $2,320,909 $2,398,287 $2,475,664 $2,553,042 $2,630,420 $2,707,797 $2,785,175 $2,862,553 $2,939,930 $3,017,308 $3,094,685 $3,172,063
Management
Cumulative $1,392,378 $2,862,133 $4,409,266 $6,033,776 $7,735,664 $9,514,930 $11,371,574 $13,305,595 $15,316,993 $17,405,770 $19,571,923 $21,815,455 $24,136,364 $26,534,651 $29,010,315 $31,563,357 $34,193,777 $36,901,574 $39,686,749 $42,549,302 $45,489,232 $48,506,540 $51,601,225 $54,773,288
Monitoring,
Annual $3.01 $/Acre $1,243,449 $1,254,898 $1,266,347 $1,277,796 $1,289,245 $1,300,694 $1,312,143 $1,323,592 $1,335,041 $1,346,490 $1,357,939 $1,369,388 $1,380,837 $1,392,286 $1,403,735 $1,415,184 $1,426,633 $1,438,082 $1,449,531 $1,460,980 $1,472,429 $1,483,878 $1,495,327 $1,506,776
Monitoring
Cumulative $1,243,449 $2,498,347 $3,764,694 $5,042,490 $6,331,735 $7,632,429 $8,944,572 $10,268,163 $11,603,204 $12,949,694 $14,307,633 $15,677,021 $17,057,857 $18,450,143 $19,853,878 $21,269,062 $22,695,694 $24,133,776 $25,583,307 $27,044,286 $28,516,715 $30,000,593 $31,495,919 $33,002,695
Endowment Costs
Net Endowment
Funding, Annual $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714
Net Endowment
Funding,
Cumulative
$6,541,714 $13,083,429 $19,625,143 $26,166,857 $32,708,572 $39,250,286 $45,792,000 $52,333,715 $58,875,429 $65,417,143 $71,958,858 $78,500,572 $85,042,286 $91,584,001 $98,125,715 $104,667,429 $111,209,144 $117,750,858 $124,292,572 $130,834,286 $137,376,001 $143,917,715 $150,459,429 $157,001,144
Administrative Costs 2
RCA Staff Costs $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495 $2,288,495
Professional Services $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062 $1,466,062
Loan Repayment 3 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254 $400,254
Total Annual Costs $5,154,811 $5,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811 $4,154,811
Cumulative Costs $5,154,811 $10,309,622 $14,464,433 $18,619,244 $22,774,055 $26,928,866 $31,083,677 $35,238,488 $39,393,299 $43,548,111 $47,702,922 $51,857,733 $56,012,544 $60,167,355 $64,322,166 $68,476,977 $72,631,788 $76,786,599 $80,941,410 $85,096,221 $89,251,032 $93,405,843 $97,560,654 $101,715,465
TOTAL ALL COSTS
TOTAL Annual $31,077,521 $31,166,348 $30,255,175 $30,344,001 $30,432,828 $30,521,655 $30,610,481 $30,699,308 $49,541,124 $49,629,951 $49,718,777 $49,807,604 $49,896,430 $49,985,257 $50,074,084 $50,162,910 $50,251,737 $50,340,563 $50,429,390 $50,518,217 $50,607,043 $50,695,870 $50,784,697 $50,873,523
TOTAL Cumulative $31,077,521 $62,243,870 $92,499,044 $122,843,046 $153,275,874 $183,797,528 $214,408,009 $245,107,317 $294,648,441 $344,278,392 $393,997,169 $443,804,773 $493,701,203 $543,686,460 $593,760,544 $643,923,454 $694,175,191 $744,515,754 $794,945,144 $845,463,361 $896,070,404 $946,766,274 $997,550,971 $1,048,424,494
1. All local land conserved to date, including all HANS dedications to date, are captured in the year 17 number.
3. Annual administrative costs decrease in year 19 due to assumption that loan repayment is completed.
Habitat Lands/
End of:
Reserve
Summary Financial Responsibility
2. RCA Administrative Costs are based on a three year average of FY 2016-17 through FY 2018-19 actual costs, adjusted to 2019 dollars.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
APPENDIX II:
Detailed Time Series of Endowment Funding
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Annual Cost Estimate for Management and Monitoring, Constant 2019$
Annual Cost
Cost Categories
by Last Year of
Land Acquisition
Period
Adjustment
Ongoing Habitat Management $3,172,063 100%$3,172,063
Ongoing Habitat Monitoring $1,506,776 100%$1,506,776
Administration1 $4,154,811 50%$2,077,406
Total $8,833,650 $6,756,244
1. Adminsitration includes salaries and benefits, accounting, auditing and reporting, contracts, etc.. Assumes less
administration is needed following the land acquisition period; ongoing adminsitrative needs include oversight, auditing
and reporting, and board staffing.
Sources: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Annual Post-Land
Acquisition Cost
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Endowment Funding – No Extension Scenario
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Post-Permit
New Impact Acres (avg. annual)2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252
Average Per Acre $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845 $9,845
Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105 $22,168,105
Endowment Balance $22,168,105 $44,336,210 $67,169,359 $90,687,502 $114,911,189 $139,861,586 $165,560,496 $192,030,373 $219,294,346
Annual Interest $0 $665,043 $1,350,038 $2,055,582 $2,782,293 $3,530,804 $4,301,772 $5,095,868 $5,913,787
Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $665,043 $2,015,081 $4,070,663 $6,852,955 $10,383,760 $14,685,531 $19,781,399 $25,695,187
Total Endowment $22,168,105 $45,001,254 $68,519,396 $92,743,083 $117,693,481 $143,392,391 $169,862,268 $197,126,241 $225,208,133
Average Annual Post Permit Interest $6,756,244
Assumptions
20,265 impact acres developed
9 year plan
3%interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate
$9,845 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit
annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Endowment Funding – 5 Year Extension Scenario
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Post-Permit
New Impact Acres (avg. annual)2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252
Average Per Acre $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854 $5,854
Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608 $13,180,608
Endowment Balance $13,180,608 $26,361,215 $39,937,241 $53,920,547 $68,323,353 $83,158,243 $98,438,180 $114,176,514 $130,386,999 $147,083,799 $164,281,502 $181,995,136 $200,240,180 $219,032,574
Annual Interest $0 $395,418 $802,699 $1,222,198 $1,654,282 $2,099,329 $2,557,727 $3,029,877 $3,516,192 $4,017,096 $4,533,027 $5,064,436 $5,611,787 $6,175,559
Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $395,418 $1,198,117 $2,420,315 $4,074,598 $6,173,927 $8,731,654 $11,761,531 $15,277,723 $19,294,819 $23,827,846 $28,892,281 $34,504,069 $40,679,628
Total Endowment $13,180,608 $26,756,633 $40,739,940 $55,142,746 $69,977,636 $85,257,572 $100,995,907 $117,206,392 $133,903,191 $151,100,894 $168,814,529 $187,059,572 $205,851,967 $225,208,133
Average Annual Post Permit Interest $6,756,244
Assumptions
31,523 impact acres developed
14 year plan
3%interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate
$5,854 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Endowment Funding – 10 Year Extension Scenario
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Post-Permit
New Impact Acres (avg. annual)2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252
Average Per Acre $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982 $3,982
Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410 $8,966,410
Endowment Balance $8,966,410 $17,932,819 $27,168,221 $36,680,686 $46,478,524 $56,570,297 $66,964,823 $77,671,185 $88,698,738 $100,057,118 $111,756,249 $123,806,354 $136,217,962 $149,001,918 $162,169,393 $175,731,892 $189,701,266 $204,089,722 $218,909,831
Annual Interest $0 $268,992 $546,054 $831,428 $1,125,363 $1,428,117 $1,739,952 $2,061,143 $2,391,970 $2,732,721 $3,083,695 $3,445,198 $3,817,547 $4,201,065 $4,596,089 $5,002,964 $5,422,046 $5,853,699 $6,298,303
Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $268,992 $815,047 $1,646,475 $2,771,838 $4,199,955 $5,939,907 $8,001,051 $10,393,020 $13,125,742 $16,209,437 $19,654,635 $23,472,182 $27,673,247 $32,269,336 $37,272,301 $42,694,347 $48,548,046 $54,846,349
Total Endowment $8,966,410 $18,201,812 $27,714,276 $37,512,114 $47,603,887 $57,998,413 $68,704,775 $79,732,328 $91,090,708 $102,789,839 $114,839,944 $127,251,552 $140,035,508 $153,202,983 $166,765,482 $180,734,856 $195,123,312 $209,943,421 $225,208,133
Average Annual Post Permit Interest $6,756,244
Assumptions
42,782 impact acres developed
19 year plan
3%interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate
$3,982 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Endowment Funding – 15 Year Extension Scenario
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
New Impact Acres (avg. annual)2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252
Average Per Acre $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905
Endowment Fee
Annual Endowment Funding $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714
Endowment Balance $6,541,714 $13,083,429 $19,821,394 $26,761,499 $33,909,807 $41,272,564 $48,856,204 $56,667,353 $64,712,836 $72,999,684 $81,535,138 $90,326,655 $99,381,917 $108,708,838 $118,315,566
Annual Interest $0 $196,251 $398,390 $606,594 $821,043 $1,041,925 $1,269,435 $1,503,769 $1,745,134 $1,993,739 $2,249,803 $2,513,548 $2,785,206 $3,065,014 $3,353,216
Cumulative Interest Earnings $0 $196,251 $594,642 $1,201,235 $2,022,278 $3,064,204 $4,333,638 $5,837,407 $7,582,541 $9,576,280 $11,826,083 $14,339,631 $17,124,837 $20,189,851 $23,543,067
Total Endowment $6,541,714 $13,279,680 $20,219,785 $27,368,093 $34,730,850 $42,314,490 $50,125,639 $58,171,122 $66,457,970 $74,993,424 $83,784,941 $92,840,203 $102,167,123 $111,773,852 $121,668,781
Average Annual Post Permit Interest
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Post-Permit
2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252 2,252
$2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905 $2,905
$6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714 $6,541,714
$128,210,496 $138,402,273 $148,899,805 $159,712,262 $170,849,092 $182,320,028 $194,135,092 $206,304,607 $218,839,209
$3,650,063 $3,955,817 $4,270,743 $4,595,116 $4,929,221 $5,273,349 $5,627,801 $5,992,887 $6,368,925
$27,193,130 $31,148,947 $35,419,689 $40,014,806 $44,944,027 $50,217,377 $55,845,178 $61,838,065 $68,206,990
$131,860,559 $142,358,090 $153,170,547 $164,307,378 $175,778,314 $187,593,377 $199,762,893 $212,297,494 $225,208,133
$6,756,244
(1) Endowment fee set to ensure that, at the end of the permit term, the total endowment (Including endowment fee revenues and interest) are sufficient to provide annual interest revenues equal to the post-permit annual cost. The real interest rate is assumed to be 3 percent annually.
Assumptions
54,040 impact acres developed
24 year plan
3%interest rate (real, net)
$6,756,244 annual post-permit cost estimate
$2,905 Endowment Funding Per Acre of Conservation
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
G-1
Appendix G - TUMF 2016 Program Update Disposition of Network Change Requests
As part of the 2024 update of the TUMF Nexus Study, the list of proposed improvements
to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development in the TUMF Network
Cost Estimate table included in the previously adopted Nexus Study was reviewed for
accuracy. In particular, the Network Cost table was reviewed to ensure the included
projects were consistent with the mitigation needs identified by the RivCoM future year
no-build traffic conditions.
To assist in the review of the Network Cost Estimate table, participating local
jurisdictions, private developers and the Riverside County Transportation Commission
were asked to submit requests for changes to the TUMF Network. The various requests
for network changes were subsequently reviewed for consistency with the program
guidelines for inclusion on the TUMF Network and to determine if future traffic impacts
would be sufficient to require mitigation primarily utilizing the RivCoM future no-build
scenario outputs to quantify impacts as well as screening the various qualitative
measures that have guided the TUMF Network development since program inception.
Based on the findings of the review of the entire TUMF network, elements of specific
projects were revised to reflect only necessary network corrections, modifications to
project assumptions and to incorporate a limited number of additional improvements.
The preliminary results of the network review and the associated screening of specific
requested projects was presented to the WRCOG Public Works Directors Committee
(PWC) in August 2023. Updated screening results were presented to the PWC in
February 2024 and the findings endorsed confirming the TUMF Network as the basis for
the Draft 2024 Nexus Study that was subsequently presented to the PWC for review and
comment in April 2024. A matrix summarizing the disposition of the specific project
requests received as part of the 2024 TUMF Nexus Update is included as Exhibit G-1 in
this Appendix.
With the release of the Draft 2024 Nexus Update Study Report for a formal review period
commencing on May 14, 2024, and ending on June 10, 2024, additional comments
were provided to WRCOG staff by thirteen participating jurisdictions or other
stakeholders. These comments were reviewed by WRCOG staff and responses were
provided to each of the parties that submitted comments. The responses included
several changes to the TUMF network to remedy typographical errors contained in the
draft report, including misreporting in the number of existing lanes, project percent
complete and interchange project type for approximately 10 TUMF network segments.
The recommended network revisions were presented to the PWC on August 8, 2024,
and are reflected in the TUMF network cost table included in Exhibit H-1.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT G-1
2024 TUMF Nexus Study Update - Network Addition Requests
Northwest Zone
City/
County
Street
Name From To Recommendation
Eastvale Hellman River Road Walter Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency
Eastvale Hellman Schleisman Walter Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency
Eastvale Hellman Cucamonga Creek bridge Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency
Eastvale River Rd Archibald Hellman Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency
Eastvale Limonite ITS city wide Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase
Eastvale Hamner ITS city wide Add to networks for deficient links with no capacity increase
Eastvale Schliesman ITS city wide Add to networks for deficient links with no capacity increase
Eastvale Archibald ITS city wide Add to networks for deficient links with no capacity increase
Eastvale Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge Bridge length increased to 500'
Riverside 3rd Chicago Iowa Do not add - no V/C deficiency and interchange overcrossing reconstructed to 4 lanes in 2006-2007
Riverside La Sierra ITS SR-91 Victoria Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase
Riverside Madison ITS SR-91 Victoria Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase
Riverside University ITS Market St Canyon Crest Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase
Riverside Tyler ITS California Ave Indiana Ave Do not add - no V/C deficiency
Riverside Alessandro Blvd ITS Fairview Ave Meridian Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase
County Markham St Mockingbird Canyon Wood Rd Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency
Central Zone
City/
County
Street
Name From To Recommendation
Menifee Garbani Haun Antelope Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
Menifee Garbani I-215 interchange Add to network to mitigate future v/c deficiency
Menifee Garbani I-215 Menifee Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
Menifee Garbani Menifee Briggs Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
Menifee Holland City Limits (West)Murrieta Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
Menifee Holland Murrieta Bradley Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency
Menifee Holland Bradley Haun Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency
Menifee Holland Antelope Muenifee Add to network for continuity and mitigate future v/c deficiency
Menifee Scott Haun Menifee Already on TUMF Network
Menifee Scott Menifee Briggs Already on TUMF Network
Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta Already on TUMF Network
Menifee Briggs Simpson Angler Already on TUMF Network
Menifee Briggs Salt Creek bridge Already on TUMF Network
Perris Ethanac Bridge San Jacinto River Already on TUMF Network
Unincorporated Grand Ave Briggs Rd SR-79 Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
San Jacinto Zone
City/
County
Street
Name From To Recommendation
Hemet Stetson Warren 0.85 Miles w/o Warren Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency
San Jacinto 7th St Western Terminus Warren Rd Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
San Jacinto 7st St Channel adjacent to Warren bridge Do not add - no future v/c deficiency
Pass Zone
City/
County
Street
Name From To Recommendation
Banning Highland Springs Cherry Valley Oak Valley Already on TUMF Network - no v/c deficiency
Banning Cottonwood I-10 interchange Do not add - no connectivity to regional network
Banning Wilson Highland Springs Highland Home Already on TUMF Network - no v/c deficiency
Banning Sun Lakes Smith Creek bridge Segment already on TUMF Network - Bridge added
Southwest Zone
City/
County
Street
Name From To Recommendation
Lake Elsinore Camino del Norte Summerhill Main Do not add - no connectivity to regional network
Lake Elsinore Summerhill Railroad Canyon Greenwald Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency
Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 Lake Already on TUMF Network
Wildomar Inland Valley Dr I-15 bridge Do not add - no connectivity to regional network
Wildomar Palomar Starbuck Washington Already on TUMF Network
Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 City Limits (Sunset)Already on TUMF Network
Murrieta Orange Springs Parkway Clinton Keith Scott Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency
Murrieta Calle del Oso Oro Vineyard Pkwy Washington Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency
Murrieta Calle del Oso Oro 1500 w/o Vineyard Pkwy bridge Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency
Murrieta Adams Murrieta Hot Springs/Hawthorne Cherry Do not add - no regional connectivity or V/C deficiency
Temecula Ynez Road Rancho California Santiago Do not add - no connectivity to regional network
Temecula Ynez Road/DePortola Road Santiago Margarita Do not add - no connectivity to regional network
Temecula ITS
Major Arterials (Winchester, Rancho California,
Butterfield Stage, Temecula Pkwy, Margarita, Jefferson City limits Add to network for deficient links with no capacity increase
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
H-1
Appendix H - TUMF Network Cost Estimate and Evaluation
For the purpose of calculating the “fair share” fee to be applied to new development
under the TUMF program, a planning level cost estimate was developed to reflect the
cost to complete improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials to
adequately accommodate future traffic growth. The planning level cost estimate was
established by applying the unit cost values (presented in Table 4.1) to the proposed
changes identified for the future Regional System of Highways and Arterials. The
resultant cost value was tabulated for each unique segment of the network, by
improvement type, based on the proposed list of improvements recommended
following the review of the TUMF Network (as described in Section 4.3, Appendix E and
Appendix G). A separate cost estimate was generated for regional transit
improvements based on information provided by RTA and added to the summary
table. The TUMF Network cost estimate table is summarized in Table 4.4 of the Nexus
Report. The detailed TUMF Network cost estimate table is included in this Appendix as
Exhibit H-1. The detailed TUMF transit cost estimate table is included as Table 4.5 of the
Nexus Report.
Where existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional
funding sources to complete necessary improvements to the TUMF Network, the cost of
these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF
program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the
availability of obligated funds.
WRCOG staff, in consultation with RCTC staff, reviewed the current Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) to identify transportation projects on the
TUMF network that had previously secured alternate sources of funding. Exhibit H-2
identifies those projects included on the TUMF Network having previously obligated
funding.
To account for existing needs in the original TUMF Nexus Study, the cost for facilities
identified as currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted by extracting the share of
the cost to improve the portion of those facilities identified in the 2018 Baseline network
scenario with a volume to capacity ratio of greater than 0.90, which is the threshold for
LOS E. The adjustment to account for existing need as part of the TUMF Nexus Study
provides for the mitigation of incremental traffic growth on those facilities with existing
need.
The following approach was applied to account for incremental traffic growth
associated with new development as part of the existing need methodology:
1. 1. Facilities with an existing need were identified by reviewing the RivCoM 2018
Baseline scenario assigned traffic on the 2021 existing network and delineating
those facilities included on the TUMF Cost Fee Summary Table that have an
average directional v/c exceeding 0.90.
a. Weighted directional v/c values were used to determine existing need for
network segments, which was calculated by:
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
H-2
i. Determining the length for the portion of each segment (model
link), and calculating the ratio of link length to the overall segment
length
ii. Generating the average directional v/c for each link, for both
directions in AM and PM periods, and multiplying by link/segment
length ratio
iii. Determining the maximum peak-period peak-direction v/c for
each link, representing the highest directional v/c in either AM or
PM
iv. Calculating weighted average v/c for each TUMF segment, based
on the sum of all weighted max v/c values of each link within a
segment
b. A similar method was used to determine existing need for spot
improvements including interchanges, railroad crossings and bridges.
However, no weighting was used in the calculation of existing need for
spot improvements. For these facilities, the peak-period peak-direction
v/c values (highest directional v/c in either AM or PM) were utilized in the
existing need calculation. This was based on the individual link within a
network segment where a bridge or railroad crossing is located, or on-
and off-ramps in the case of interchanges.
2. Initial costs of addressing the existing need were calculated by estimating the
share of a particular roadway segments “new lane” cost, or individual spot
improvement cost (including all associated ROW and soft costs).
3. Incremental growth in v/c was determined by comparing the average
directional base year v/c for the TUMF facilities (delineated under step one) with
the horizon year v/c for the corresponding segments and spot improvements
calculated based on the RivCoM 2045 No-Build scenario assigned traffic on the
2021 existing network using the same methodology as the base year v/c.
4. The proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development was
determined by dividing the result of step three with the total 2045 No-Build
scenario v/c in excess of LOS E.
5. For those segments experiencing a net increase in v/c over the base year, TUMF
will ‘discount’ the cost of existing need improvements by the proportion of the
incremental v/c growth through 2045 No-Build compared to the 2018 Baseline
v/c (up to a maximum of 100%).
Exhibit H-2 includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs
on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate
for each segment experiencing unacceptable LOS.
For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was
determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
H-3
projected daily bus transit ridership representing existing demand. Exhibit H-3 reflects
the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost.
To validate the effectiveness of the TUMF Network improvements to mitigate the
cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development in Western Riverside
County, the future TUMF Network was evaluated. The proposed improvements to the
Regional System of Highways and Arterials were coded on the 2021 existing network
derived from RivCoM and the model was run to determine the relative impacts on
traffic conditions. To quantify the impacts of the TUMF Network improvements, the
various traffic measures of effectiveness described in Section 3.1 for the 2018 Baseline
and 2045 No-Build scenarios were calculated for the 2045 TUMF Build network scenario.
The results for VMT, VHT, VHD, and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service
(LOS E) were then compared to the results presented in Table 3.1 for the no-build
conditions. The consolidated results are provided in Table 4.6.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-1 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate Updated: July 23, 2024
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORK MILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSE INTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING ITS NEWLNCOST ROWCOST INTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOST ITSCOST PLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Central Menifee Ethanac Goetz Murrieta Backbone 0.99 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Ethanac Murrieta I-215 Backbone 0.90 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Ethanac I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Central Menifee Ethanac Sherman Matthews Backbone 0.61 2 4 0%1.23 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,388,000 $601,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $139,000 $347,000 $199,000 $2,674,000 $2,674,000
Central Menifee Ethanac BNSF San Jacinto Branch railroad crossing Backbone 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,800,000 $0 $7,280,000 $18,200,000 $7,280,000 $105,560,000 $105,560,000
Central Menifee Menifee SR-74 (Pinacate)Simpson Backbone 2.50 2 4 88%0.60 1 3 0 0 0 0 $678,000 $294,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $68,000 $170,000 $97,000 $1,307,000 $1,307,000
Central Menifee Menifee Salt Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 315 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,024,000 $0 $0 $302,000 $756,000 $302,000 $4,384,000 $4,384,000
Central Menifee Menifee Simpson Aldergate Backbone 0.64 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Aldergate Newport Backbone 0.98 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Newport Holland Backbone 1.07 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Holland Garbani Backbone 1.03 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Garbani Scott Backbone 1.00 2 4 0%2.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,260,000 $978,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $226,000 $565,000 $324,000 $4,353,000 $4,353,000
Central Menifee Menifee/Whitewood Scott Murrieta City Limit Backbone 0.53 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Goetz Murrieta Backbone 1.81 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Murrieta I-215 Backbone 1.99 4 6 87%0.52 1 3 0 0 0 0 $586,000 $254,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $59,000 $147,000 $84,000 $1,130,000 $1,130,000
Central Menifee Newport I-215 Menifee Backbone 1.02 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Menifee Lindenberger Backbone 0.77 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Lindenberger SR-79 (Winchester)Backbone 3.58 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Scott I-215 Briggs Backbone 1.98 4 6 0%3.96 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,483,000 $1,941,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $448,000 $1,121,000 $642,000 $8,635,000 $8,635,000
Central Menifee Scott I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta Backbone 1.01 2 4 0%2.01 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,278,000 $986,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $228,000 $570,000 $326,000 $4,388,000 $4,388,000
Central Menifee Scott Murrieta I-215 Backbone 1.94 2 6 0%7.77 1 3 0 0 0 0 $8,799,000 $3,809,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $880,000 $2,200,000 $1,261,000 $16,949,000 $12,949,000
Central Menifee SR-74 Matthews Briggs Backbone 1.89 4 6 0%3.79 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,285,000 $1,855,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $429,000 $1,071,000 $614,000 $8,254,000 $8,254,000
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro I-215 Perris Backbone 3.52 4 6 75%1.76 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,992,000 $9,574,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $199,000 $498,000 $1,157,000 $13,420,000 $13,420,000
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Perris Nason Backbone 2.00 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Nason Moreno Beach Backbone 0.99 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Moreno Beach Gilman Springs Backbone 4.13 2 4 0%8.26 1 3 0 0 0 0 $9,355,000 $4,049,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $936,000 $2,339,000 $1,340,000 $18,019,000 $18,019,000
Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 Alessandro Backbone 1.67 2 4 0%3.34 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,785,000 $1,639,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $379,000 $946,000 $542,000 $7,291,000 $7,291,000
Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris Reche Vista Ironwood Backbone 2.09 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris Ironwood Sunnymead Backbone 0.52 4 4 80%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris SR-60 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $11,192,000
Central Moreno Valley Perris Sunnymead Cactus Backbone 2.00 4 4 25%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris Cactus Harley Knox Backbone 3.64 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Reche Vista Country Heacock Backbone 0.44 2 4 0%0.88 2 2 0 0 0 0 $1,531,000 $4,787,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $153,000 $383,000 $632,000 $7,486,000 $3,799,000
Central Perris 11th/Case Perris Goetz Backbone 0.30 2 4 0%0.60 1 2 0 0 0 0 $680,000 $3,269,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $68,000 $170,000 $395,000 $4,582,000 $4,582,000
Central Perris Case Goetz I-215 Backbone 2.36 2 4 42%2.74 1 2 0 0 0 0 $3,099,000 $14,893,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $310,000 $775,000 $1,799,000 $20,876,000 $20,876,000
Central Perris Case San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 125 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,200,000 $0 $0 $120,000 $300,000 $120,000 $1,740,000 $1,235,000
Central Perris Ethanac Keystone Goetz Backbone 2.24 0 2 38%2.78 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,144,000 $1,361,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $314,000 $786,000 $451,000 $6,056,000 $6,056,000
Central Perris Ethanac San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 0 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 400 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,840,000 $0 $0 $384,000 $960,000 $384,000 $5,568,000 $5,568,000
Central Perris Ethanac I-215 Sherman Backbone 0.35 2 4 0%0.70 1 2 0 0 0 0 $789,000 $3,793,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $79,000 $197,000 $458,000 $5,316,000 $5,316,000
Central Perris Goetz Case Ethanac Backbone 2.16 2 4 84%0.69 1 3 0 0 0 0 $782,000 $339,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,000 $196,000 $112,000 $1,507,000 $999,000
Central Perris Goetz San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 400 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,840,000 $0 $0 $384,000 $960,000 $384,000 $5,568,000 $3,398,000
Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia)I-215 Perris Backbone 0.87 0 4 41%2.05 1 2 0 0 0 0 $2,324,000 $11,169,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $232,000 $581,000 $1,349,000 $15,655,000 $15,655,000
Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia)I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia)Perris Evans Backbone 1.57 0 4 52%3.01 1 2 0 0 0 0 $3,412,000 $16,398,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $341,000 $853,000 $1,981,000 $22,985,000 $22,985,000
Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia)Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge Backbone 0.00 0 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,760,000 $0 $0 $576,000 $1,440,000 $576,000 $8,352,000 $8,352,000
Central Perris Perris Harley Knox Ramona Backbone 1.00 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Perris Ramona Citrus Backbone 2.49 4 6 35%3.24 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,667,000 $1,587,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $367,000 $917,000 $525,000 $7,063,000 $7,063,000
Central Perris Perris Citrus Nuevo Backbone 0.50 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Perris Nuevo 11th Backbone 1.75 2 4 74%0.91 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,028,000 $4,942,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $103,000 $257,000 $597,000 $6,927,000 $6,927,000
Central Perris Perris I-215 overcrossing bridge Backbone 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Ramona I-215 Perris Backbone 1.44 4 6 77%0.66 1 2 0 0 0 0 $748,000 $3,595,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $187,000 $434,000 $5,039,000 $5,039,000
Central Perris Ramona I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $7,725,000
Central Perris Ramona Perris Evans Backbone 1.00 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Ramona Evans Mid-County (2,800 ft E of Rider)Backbone 2.62 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris SR-74 (4th)Ellis I-215 Backbone 2.33 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Ethanac SR-74 Keystone Backbone 1.07 0 2 0%2.14 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,422,000 $1,049,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $242,000 $606,000 $347,000 $4,666,000 $4,666,000
Central Unincorporated Gilman Springs Alessandro Bridge Road Backbone 5.00 2 4 0%9.99 2 3 0 0 0 0 $17,389,000 $4,897,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,739,000 $4,347,000 $2,229,000 $30,601,000 $30,601,000
Central Unincorporated Menifee Nuevo SR-74 (Pinacate)Backbone 4.07 2 4 6%7.65 1 3 0 0 0 0 $8,662,000 $3,749,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $866,000 $2,166,000 $1,241,000 $16,684,000 $16,684,000
Central Unincorporated Mid-County Evans Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider)Backbone 0.77 0 4 0%3.08 3 3 0 0 0 0 $7,238,000 $1,509,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $724,000 $1,810,000 $875,000 $12,156,000 $12,156,000
Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona)Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider)Pico Avenue Backbone 0.44 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona)Pico Avenue Bridge Road Backbone 5.95 2 6 8%21.91 1 3 0 0 0 0 $24,800,000 $10,735,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,480,000 $6,200,000 $3,554,000 $47,769,000 $47,769,000
Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona)San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 2 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 1,300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $24,960,000 $0 $0 $2,496,000 $6,240,000 $2,496,000 $36,192,000 $36,192,000
Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon San Bernardino County Reche Vista Backbone 3.35 2 2 0%0.00 3 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Reche Vista Reche Canyon Country Backbone 1.22 2 2 0%0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Scott Briggs SR-79 (Winchester)Backbone 3.04 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated SR-74 Ethanac Ellis Backbone 2.72 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 Temescal Canyon Backbone 0.50 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Paseo Grande Lincoln Backbone 2.60 4 4 0%0.00 3 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Wardlow Wash bridge Backbone 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 3 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Lincoln California Backbone 2.81 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill California I-15 Backbone 0.89 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Green River SR-91 Dominguez Ranch Backbone 0.52 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Green River Dominguez Ranch Palisades Backbone 0.56 6 6 0%0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Green River Palisades Paseo Grande Backbone 2.01 4 4 0%0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman San Bernardino County 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek Backbone 0.65 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $446,000 $45,000 $112,000 $45,000 $648,000 $648,000
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Cucamonga Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 200 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek Harrison Backbone 0.87 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $597,000 $60,000 $149,000 $60,000 $866,000 $866,000
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Harrison Sumner Backbone 0.49 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $336,000 $34,000 $84,000 $34,000 $488,000 $488,000
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Sumner Scholar Backbone 0.50 2 4 0%1.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,132,000 $5,440,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 $283,000 $657,000 $7,625,000 $7,625,000
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Scholar A Street Backbone 0.31 5 6 95%0.02 1 2 0 0 0 0 $18,000 $84,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $5,000 $10,000 $119,000 $119,000
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman A Street Hamner Backbone 0.27 4 6 95%0.03 1 2 0 0 0 0 $31,000 $149,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $8,000 $18,000 $209,000 $209,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren SR-60 Bellegrave Backbone 1.57 4 6 0%3.14 1 2 0 0 0 0 $3,552,000 $17,071,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $355,000 $888,000 $2,062,000 $23,928,000 $10,461,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren Bellegrave Santa Ana River Backbone 3.99 4 6 0%7.99 1 2 0 0 0 0 $9,041,000 $43,446,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $904,000 $2,260,000 $5,249,000 $60,900,000 $0
Northwest Riverside Alessandro Arlington Trautwein Backbone 2.42 6 6 0%0.00 2 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,662,000 $166,000 $416,000 $166,000 $2,410,000 $2,410,000
Northwest Riverside Arlington La Sierra Magnolia Backbone 5.84 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Arlington Magnolia Alessandro Backbone 2.73 4 6 0%5.46 2 2 0 0 0 0 $9,504,000 $29,713,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $950,000 $2,376,000 $3,922,000 $46,465,000 $46,465,000
Northwest Riverside Van Buren Santa Ana River SR-91 Backbone 3.81 4 6 91%0.69 1 2 0 0 0 0 $776,000 $3,731,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78,000 $194,000 $451,000 $5,230,000 $4,392,000
Northwest Riverside Van Buren SR-91 Mockingbird Canyon Backbone 3.08 4 6 16%5.18 1 2 0 0 0 0 $5,863,000 $28,174,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $586,000 $1,466,000 $3,404,000 $39,493,000 $21,292,000
Northwest Riverside Van Buren Wood Trautwein Backbone 0.43 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Van Buren Trautwein Orange Terrace Backbone 1.27 5 6 22%0.99 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,124,000 $5,404,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $112,000 $281,000 $653,000 $7,574,000 $7,574,000
Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Trautwein Vista Grande Backbone 1.22 6 6 0%0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Vista Grande I-215 Backbone 1.26 6 6 0%0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco El Sobrante Harley John Backbone 0.86 2 6 0%3.46 2 3 0 0 0 0 $6,012,000 $1,693,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $601,000 $1,503,000 $771,000 $10,580,000 $9,817,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harley John Harvil Backbone 5.81 2 6 6%21.83 1 2 0 0 0 0 $24,716,000 $118,776,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,472,000 $6,179,000 $14,349,000 $166,492,000 $166,492,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harvil I-215 Backbone 0.28 4 6 0%0.57 1 3 0 0 0 0 $643,000 $278,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 $161,000 $92,000 $1,238,000 $1,238,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Canyon La Sierra Backbone 3.21 2 6 2%12.57 3 3 0 0 0 0 $29,533,000 $6,158,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,953,000 $7,383,000 $3,569,000 $49,596,000 $35,953,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Wash bridge Backbone 0.00 2 6 0%0.00 3 3 0 175 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,360,000 $0 $0 $336,000 $840,000 $336,000 $4,872,000 $1,907,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco La Sierra El Sobrante Backbone 6.11 2 6 0%24.44 3 3 0 0 0 0 $57,434,000 $11,976,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,743,000 $14,359,000 $6,941,000 $96,453,000 $96,453,000
Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Mockingbird Canyon Wood Backbone 4.42 4 6 0%8.84 1 2 0 0 0 0 $10,010,000 $48,104,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,001,000 $2,503,000 $5,811,000 $67,429,000 $67,429,000
Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Orange Terrace I-215 Backbone 1.89 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-1 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate Updated: July 23, 2024
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORK MILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSE INTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING ITS NEWLNCOST ROWCOST INTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOST ITSCOST PLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Pass Banning Highland Springs Wilson (8th)Sun Lakes Backbone 0.76 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Highland Springs I-10 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $32,516,000
Pass Banning Highland Springs Oak Valley (14th)Wilson (8th)Backbone 0.73 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Highland Springs Cherry Valley Oak Valley (14th)Backbone 1.53 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 Morongo Trail (Apache Trail)Backbone 3.29 0 2 0%6.57 1 2 0 0 0 0 $7,439,000 $35,748,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $744,000 $1,860,000 $4,319,000 $50,110,000 $50,110,000
Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $63,061,000
Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South San Gorgonio bridge Backbone 0.00 0 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $4,176,000
Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South UP/Hargrave railroad crossing Backbone 0.00 0 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,400,000 $0 $3,640,000 $9,100,000 $3,640,000 $52,780,000 $52,780,000
Pass Beaumont Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)I-10 Backbone 1.37 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero Oak Valley (San Timoteo Canyon)SR-60 Backbone 0.72 2 4 65%0.50 1 3 0 0 0 0 $571,000 $247,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $143,000 $82,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000
Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 3 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $29,561,000
Pass Beaumont Potrero UP railroad crossing Backbone 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,600,000 $0 $2,760,000 $6,900,000 $2,760,000 $40,020,000 $40,020,000
Pass Beaumont Potrero Noble Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 500 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 4th Backbone 0.45 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont)I-10 California Backbone 1.15 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont)I-10 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $7,408,000
Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley I-10 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 3 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $59,773,000
Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley Roberts St Roberts Rd Backbone 0.70 2 4 0%1.40 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,585,000 $686,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $159,000 $396,000 $227,000 $3,053,000 $3,053,000
Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Bellflower Noble Backbone 1.47 0 2 0%2.94 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,328,000 $1,441,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $333,000 $832,000 $477,000 $6,411,000 $6,411,000
Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Highland Springs Bellflower Backbone 0.44 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Noble Roberts St Backbone 3.25 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley San Timoteo Wash bridge Backbone 0.00 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated SR-79 (Lamb Canyon)California Gilman Springs Backbone 5.23 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Warren Sanderson Backbone 1.77 4 6 0%3.54 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,011,000 $1,736,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $401,000 $1,003,000 $575,000 $7,726,000 $7,726,000
San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Sanderson State Backbone 2.14 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 Winchester Warren Backbone 2.59 4 6 11%4.62 1 2 0 0 0 0 $5,227,000 $25,117,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $523,000 $1,307,000 $3,034,000 $35,208,000 $35,208,000
San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona)Warren Sanderson Backbone 1.73 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona)Sanderson/SR-79 (Hemet Bypass)interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Sanderson State Backbone 2.39 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona State Main Backbone 2.66 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Main Cedar Backbone 2.40 0 4 57%4.13 1 2 0 0 0 0 $4,679,000 $22,485,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $468,000 $1,170,000 $2,716,000 $31,518,000 $26,928,000
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Cedar SR-74 Backbone 1.10 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni SR-79 (Winchester)Warren Backbone 3.10 4 6 0%6.20 1 3 0 0 0 0 $7,013,000 $3,036,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $701,000 $1,753,000 $1,005,000 $13,508,000 $13,508,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni San Diego Aqueduct bridge Backbone 0.00 4 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $4,176,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Bridge Sanderson Backbone 2.95 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona)Bridge Warren Backbone 2.35 2 4 10%4.23 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,787,000 $2,072,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $479,000 $1,197,000 $686,000 $9,221,000 $9,221,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-74 Briggs SR-79 (Winchester)Backbone 3.54 4 6 0%7.07 1 3 0 0 0 0 $8,004,000 $3,465,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800,000 $2,001,000 $1,147,000 $15,417,000 $15,417,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass)SR-74 (Florida)Domenigoni Backbone 3.22 0 2 1%6.38 1 3 0 0 0 0 $7,217,000 $3,124,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $722,000 $1,804,000 $1,034,000 $13,901,000 $13,901,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass)San Diego Aqueduct bridge Backbone 0.00 0 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $4,176,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass)Domenigoni Winchester Backbone 1.50 0 2 0%3.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,396,000 $1,470,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $340,000 $849,000 $487,000 $6,542,000 $6,542,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (San Jacinto Bypass)Mid-County (Ramona)SR-74 (Florida)Backbone 6.50 0 4 0%26.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $29,432,000 $12,740,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,943,000 $7,358,000 $4,217,000 $56,690,000 $56,690,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson)Gilman Springs Ramona Backbone 1.58 4 6 0%3.16 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,582,000 $1,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $358,000 $896,000 $513,000 $6,899,000 $2,555,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson)San Jacinto River bridge Backbone 0.00 4 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 1,400 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $13,440,000 $0 $0 $1,344,000 $3,360,000 $1,344,000 $19,488,000 $7,651,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)Domenigoni Keller Backbone 4.90 4 6 13%8.53 1 2 0 0 0 0 $9,653,000 $46,387,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $965,000 $2,413,000 $5,604,000 $65,022,000 $65,022,000
Southwest Canyon Lake Goetz Railroad Canyon Newport Backbone 0.50 4 4 0%0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Canyon Lake Railroad Canyon Canyon Hills Goetz Backbone 1.95 6 6 0%0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 Canyon Hills Backbone 2.36 6 6 50%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 3 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $24,162,000
Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Copper Craft Toulon Backbone 1.31 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Toulon I-215 Backbone 0.90 4 6 47%0.95 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,078,000 $466,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $108,000 $270,000 $154,000 $2,076,000 $2,076,000
Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith I-215 Whitewood Backbone 0.75 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date)Murrieta Hot Springs Winchester Creek Backbone 0.24 0 4 0%0.96 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,087,000 $5,222,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $109,000 $272,000 $631,000 $7,321,000 $7,321,000
Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date)Winchester Creek Margarita Backbone 0.61 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Menifee City Limit Keller Backbone 0.55 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Keller Clinton Keith Backbone 2.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry)Jefferson Diaz Backbone 0.56 0 2 54%0.52 1 2 0 0 0 0 $583,000 $2,803,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $58,000 $146,000 $339,000 $3,929,000 $3,929,000
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry)Murrieta Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 0 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 420 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $4,032,000 $0 $0 $403,000 $1,008,000 $403,000 $5,846,000 $5,846,000
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date)Margarita Ynez Backbone 0.91 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date)Ynez Jefferson Backbone 0.73 0 2 55%0.66 1 2 0 0 0 0 $744,000 $3,574,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $74,000 $186,000 $432,000 $5,010,000 $5,010,000
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date)I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 1 0 0 0 $0 $0 $84,190,000 $0 $0 $0 $8,419,000 $21,048,000 $8,419,000 $122,076,000 $122,076,000
Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester)Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson Backbone 2.71 6 6 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,860,000 $186,000 $465,000 $186,000 $2,697,000 $2,697,000
Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester)I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Diaz)Cherry Rancho California Backbone 2.14 0 2 93%0.30 1 2 0 0 0 0 $339,000 $1,630,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,000 $85,000 $197,000 $2,285,000 $2,285,000
Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga)Rancho California SR-79 (Front)Backbone 1.48 0 2 15%2.52 3 2 0 0 0 0 $5,913,000 $13,687,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $591,000 $1,478,000 $1,960,000 $23,629,000 $23,629,000
Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga)I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 3 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga)Murrieta Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 0 2 0%0.00 3 2 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $4,176,000
Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR-79 Eastern Bypass Backbone 2.40 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Whitewood SR-79 Backbone 2.54 0 4 75%2.54 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,875,000 $1,245,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $719,000 $412,000 $5,539,000 $5,539,000
Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Warm Springs Creek bridge Backbone 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 1,200 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated SR-74 I-15 Ethanac Backbone 4.97 4 6 9%9.05 2 3 0 0 0 0 $15,740,000 $4,433,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,574,000 $3,935,000 $2,017,000 $27,699,000 $26,347,000
Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)Keller Thompson Backbone 2.47 4 6 9%4.49 1 2 0 0 0 0 $5,079,000 $24,407,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $508,000 $1,270,000 $2,949,000 $34,213,000 $34,213,000
Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)Thompson La Alba Backbone 1.82 4 6 0%3.63 1 2 0 0 0 0 $4,112,000 $19,761,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $411,000 $1,028,000 $2,387,000 $27,699,000 $27,699,000
Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)La Alba Hunter Backbone 0.51 4 6 0%1.03 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,166,000 $5,602,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,000 $292,000 $677,000 $7,854,000 $3,042,000
Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)Hunter Murrieta Hot Springs Backbone 1.14 4 6 88%0.27 1 3 0 0 0 0 $309,000 $134,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,000 $77,000 $44,000 $595,000 $442,000
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 Monte Vista Backbone 0.22 4 6 0%0.44 2 3 0 0 0 0 $774,000 $218,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,000 $194,000 $99,000 $1,362,000 $1,362,000
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Monte Vista Sunset Backbone 3.14 2 4 0%6.29 3 3 0 0 0 0 $14,778,000 $3,081,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,478,000 $3,695,000 $1,786,000 $24,818,000 $24,818,000
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 2 3 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $24,613,000
Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith Palomar I-15 Backbone 0.55 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith I-15 Copper Craft Backbone 1.96 2 4 58%1.64 2 3 0 0 0 0 $2,858,000 $805,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $286,000 $715,000 $366,000 $5,030,000 $0
Subtotal Backbone 269.95 318.02 11 8,835 3 7.14 $438,352,000 $682,621,000 $435,330,000 $74,976,000 $136,800,000 $4,901,000 $109,037,000 $272,606,000 $177,298,000 $2,331,921,000 $1,961,707,000
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-1 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate Updated: July 23, 2024
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORK MILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSE INTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING ITS NEWLNCOST ROWCOST INTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOST ITSCOST PLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Central Menifee Briggs Newport Scott Secondary 3.05 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Briggs SR-74 (Pinacate)Simpson Secondary 2.54 2 4 73%1.37 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,553,000 $672,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $155,000 $388,000 $223,000 $2,991,000 $2,991,000
Central Menifee Briggs Simpson Old Newport Secondary 1.50 0 2 17%2.49 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,819,000 $1,220,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $282,000 $705,000 $404,000 $5,430,000 $5,430,000
Central Menifee Briggs Salt Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 0 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 600 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,760,000 $0 $0 $576,000 $1,440,000 $576,000 $8,352,000 $8,352,000
Central Menifee Garbani I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 3 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $42,483,000
Central Menifee Goetz Juanita Lesser Lane Secondary 2.61 2 4 0%5.22 1 3 0 0 0 0 $5,907,000 $2,557,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $591,000 $1,477,000 $846,000 $11,378,000 $11,378,000
Central Menifee Goetz Newport Juanita Secondary 1.36 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Holland Murrieta Bradley Secondary 1.03 2 4 0%2.06 1 2 0 0 0 0 $2,332,000 $11,206,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $233,000 $583,000 $1,354,000 $15,708,000 $15,708,000
Central Menifee Holland Bradley Haun Secondary 0.75 2 4 0%1.50 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,698,000 $8,160,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $170,000 $425,000 $986,000 $11,439,000 $11,439,000
Central Menifee Holland Haun Antelope Secondary 0.31 0 4 0%1.24 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,404,000 $6,746,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $351,000 $815,000 $9,456,000 $9,456,000
Central Menifee Holland I-215 overcrossing bridge Secondary 0.00 0 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 350 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $6,720,000 $0 $0 $672,000 $1,680,000 $672,000 $9,744,000 $9,744,000
Central Menifee Holland Antelope Menifee Secondary 0.70 2 4 64%0.50 1 2 0 0 0 0 $571,000 $2,742,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $143,000 $331,000 $3,844,000 $3,844,000
Central Menifee McCall I-215 Aspel Secondary 1.23 4 6 0%2.46 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,780,000 $1,203,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $278,000 $695,000 $398,000 $5,354,000 $5,354,000
Central Menifee McCall I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee Secondary 0.95 2 4 45%1.05 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,188,000 $514,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $119,000 $297,000 $170,000 $2,288,000 $2,288,000
Central Menifee Murrieta Ethanac McCall Secondary 1.95 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Murrieta McCall Newport Secondary 2.03 2 4 10%3.65 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,136,000 $1,790,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $414,000 $1,034,000 $593,000 $7,967,000 $7,967,000
Central Menifee Murrieta Newport Bundy Canyon Secondary 3.00 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 Heacock Secondary 2.17 4 6 83%0.74 1 2 0 0 0 0 $834,000 $4,007,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $83,000 $209,000 $484,000 $5,617,000 $5,617,000
Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day Ironwood SR-60 Secondary 0.28 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 Eucalyptus Secondary 0.77 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus I-215 Towngate Secondary 1.00 4 6 42%1.16 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,313,000 $6,309,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $131,000 $328,000 $762,000 $8,843,000 $8,843,000
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Towngate Frederick Secondary 0.67 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Frederick Heacock Secondary 1.01 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Heacock Kitching Secondary 1.01 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Kitching Moreno Beach Secondary 2.42 4 4 98%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Moreno Beach Theodore Secondary 2.28 4 4 47%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Frederick SR-60 Alessandro Secondary 1.63 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock Cactus San Michele Secondary 2.79 4 4 77%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock Reche Vista Cactus Secondary 4.73 4 4 92%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock San Michele Harley Knox Secondary 0.74 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Ironwood SR-60 Day Secondary 1.33 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Ironwood Day Heacock Secondary 2.01 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Lasselle Alessandro John F Kennedy Secondary 1.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Lasselle John F Kennedy Oleander Secondary 3.16 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach Reche Canyon SR-60 Secondary 1.23 2 4 0%2.47 1 2 0 0 0 0 $2,790,000 $13,410,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $279,000 $698,000 $1,620,000 $18,797,000 $18,797,000
Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach SR-60 overcrossing bridge Secondary 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 250 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Nason SR-60 Alessandro Secondary 1.51 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass Ironwood SR-60 Secondary 0.40 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Ironwood Secondary 2.66 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Locust Secondary 0.35 2 2 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Redlands Locust Alessandro Secondary 2.75 2 4 5%5.22 1 2 0 0 0 0 $5,907,000 $28,385,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $591,000 $1,477,000 $3,429,000 $39,789,000 $39,789,000
Central Moreno Valley Redlands SR-60 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 Eucalyptus Secondary 0.26 2 4 0%0.52 1 2 0 0 0 0 $589,000 $2,829,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $59,000 $147,000 $342,000 $3,966,000 $3,966,000
Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Central Perris Ellis Goetz Evans Secondary 1.27 0 4 14%4.37 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,945,000 $2,141,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $495,000 $1,236,000 $709,000 $9,526,000 $9,526,000
Central Perris Evans Oleander Ramona Secondary 1.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Ramona Morgan Secondary 0.59 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Morgan Rider Secondary 0.50 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Rider Placentia Secondary 0.56 2 2 79%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Placentia Nuevo Secondary 1.52 0 4 51%2.98 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,370,000 $1,459,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $337,000 $843,000 $483,000 $6,492,000 $6,492,000
Central Perris Evans Nuevo Ellis Secondary 2.03 0 4 0%8.12 1 3 0 0 0 0 $9,192,000 $3,979,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $919,000 $2,298,000 $1,317,000 $17,705,000 $17,705,000
Central Perris Evans San Jacinto River bridge Secondary 0.00 0 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 400 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $7,680,000 $0 $0 $768,000 $1,920,000 $768,000 $11,136,000 $11,136,000
Central Perris Evans I-215 bridge Secondary 0.00 0 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,760,000 $0 $0 $576,000 $1,440,000 $576,000 $8,352,000 $8,352,000
Central Perris Goetz Lesser Ethanac Secondary 2.04 2 4 12%3.60 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,073,000 $1,763,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $407,000 $1,018,000 $584,000 $7,845,000 $7,845,000
Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 Indian Secondary 1.53 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Perris Secondary 0.50 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Perris Redlands Secondary 0.50 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Nuevo I-215 Murrieta Secondary 1.36 4 6 18%2.23 1 2 0 0 0 0 $2,519,000 $12,107,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $252,000 $630,000 $1,463,000 $16,971,000 $16,971,000
Central Perris Nuevo I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $19,736,000
Central Perris Nuevo Murrieta Dunlap Secondary 1.00 2 4 0%2.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,267,000 $981,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $227,000 $567,000 $325,000 $4,367,000 $4,367,000
Central Perris Nuevo Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge Secondary 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews)I-215 Ethanac Secondary 1.25 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews)I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $21,835,000
Central Unincorporated Center (Main)I-215 Mt Vernon Secondary 1.66 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Center (Main)I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $11,912,000
Central Unincorporated Center (Main)BNSF railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,800,000 $0 $1,380,000 $3,450,000 $1,380,000 $20,010,000 $20,010,000
Central Unincorporated Ellis Post SR-74 Secondary 2.65 2 4 0%5.30 1 3 0 0 0 0 $5,996,000 $2,596,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $1,499,000 $859,000 $11,550,000 $11,550,000
Central Unincorporated Mount Vernon/CETAP Corridor Center Pigeon Pass Secondary 0.61 2 4 46%0.65 3 3 0 0 0 0 $1,537,000 $321,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,000 $384,000 $186,000 $2,582,000 $2,582,000
Central Unincorporated Nuevo Dunlap Menifee Secondary 2.00 2 4 0%4.01 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,536,000 $1,963,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $454,000 $1,134,000 $650,000 $8,737,000 $2,505,000
Central Unincorporated Nuevo San Jacinto River bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 400 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,840,000 $0 $0 $384,000 $960,000 $384,000 $5,568,000 $5,568,000
Central Unincorporated Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Mount Vernon Secondary 3.95 0 2 74%2.05 3 3 0 0 0 0 $4,827,000 $1,006,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $483,000 $1,207,000 $583,000 $8,106,000 $8,106,000
Central Unincorporated Post Santa Rosa Mine Ellis Secondary 0.44 2 2 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit Secondary 3.20 0 0 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Redlands San Timoteo Canyon Locust Secondary 2.54 2 2 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona 6th SR-91 Magnolia Secondary 4.50 4 4 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Auto Center Railroad SR-91 Secondary 0.48 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco Bedford Canyon I-15 Secondary 0.15 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Hidden Valley Norco Hills McKinley Secondary 0.59 4 4 0%0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Lincoln Parkridge Ontario Secondary 3.20 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Magnolia 6th Sherborn Secondary 0.46 4 6 0%0.92 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,047,000 $5,032,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105,000 $262,000 $608,000 $7,054,000 $6,419,000
Northwest Corona Magnolia Temescal Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 4 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $3,580,000
Northwest Corona Magnolia Sherborn Rimpau Secondary 0.53 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Magnolia Rimpau Ontario Secondary 1.17 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Grand Ontario Secondary 0.88 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Ontario Foothill Secondary 0.89 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Hidden Valley Parkridge Secondary 0.35 4 6 0%0.70 1 2 0 0 0 0 $789,000 $3,791,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $79,000 $197,000 $458,000 $5,314,000 $4,389,000
Northwest Corona Main Parkridge SR-91 Secondary 0.91 6 6 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main SR-91 S. Grand Secondary 0.81 4 4 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Hidden Valley Promenade Secondary 0.40 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Promenade SR-91 Secondary 0.33 6 6 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley SR-91 Magnolia Secondary 0.31 4 4 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Arlington Channel bridge Secondary 0.00 6 6 0%0.00 1 1 0 100 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley BNSF railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,800,000 $0 $7,280,000 $18,200,000 $7,280,000 $105,560,000 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario I-15 El Cerrito Secondary 0.88 4 6 0%1.76 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,997,000 $9,596,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $499,000 $1,159,000 $13,451,000 $13,451,000
Northwest Corona Ontario Lincoln Buena Vista Secondary 0.32 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Buena Vista Main Secondary 0.65 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Main Kellogg Secondary 0.78 6 6 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Kellogg Fullerton Secondary 0.32 6 6 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Fullerton Rimpau Secondary 0.42 6 6 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Rimpau I-15 Secondary 0.67 6 6 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Railroad Auto Club Buena Vista Secondary 2.45 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Railroad BNSF railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,600,000 $0 $2,760,000 $6,900,000 $2,760,000 $40,020,000 $40,020,000
Northwest Corona Railroad Buena Vista Main (at Grand)Secondary 0.58 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona River Corydon Main Secondary 2.28 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Serfas Club SR-91 Green River Secondary 0.96 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-1 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate Updated: July 23, 2024
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORK MILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSE INTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING ITS NEWLNCOST ROWCOST INTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOST ITSCOST PLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Northwest Eastvale Archibald Remington River Secondary 3.40 4 4 82%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,333,000 $233,000 $583,000 $233,000 $3,382,000 $3,382,000
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Mission Bellegrave Secondary 3.03 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Bellegrave Amberhill Secondary 0.20 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $137,000 $14,000 $34,000 $14,000 $199,000 $199,000
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Amberhill Limonite Secondary 0.71 2 6 55%1.28 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,447,000 $626,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $145,000 $362,000 $207,000 $2,787,000 $2,787,000
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Limonite Schleisman Secondary 1.00 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $684,000 $68,000 $171,000 $68,000 $991,000 $991,000
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Schleisman Santa Ana River Secondary 0.82 2 6 23%2.54 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,873,000 $1,243,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $287,000 $718,000 $412,000 $5,533,000 $3,675,000
Northwest Eastvale Hellman Schleisman Walters Secondary 0.55 2 4 90%0.06 1 2 0 0 0 0 $62,000 $299,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $16,000 $36,000 $419,000 $419,000
Northwest Eastvale Hellman Walters River Secondary 1.41 2 4 0%2.82 1 2 0 0 0 0 $3,192,000 $15,341,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $319,000 $798,000 $1,853,000 $21,503,000 $21,503,000
Northwest Eastvale Hellman Cucamonga Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 275 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,640,000 $0 $0 $264,000 $660,000 $264,000 $3,828,000 $3,828,000
Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 Eastvale Gateway Secondary 0.29 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $199,000 $20,000 $50,000 $20,000 $289,000 $289,000
Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Eastvale Gateway Hamner Secondary 0.26 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,000 $18,000 $44,000 $18,000 $255,000 $255,000
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Hamner Sumner Secondary 1.00 4 6 75%0.50 1 3 0 0 0 0 $568,000 $246,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $142,000 $81,000 $1,094,000 $1,094,000
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Sumner Harrison Secondary 0.50 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $343,000 $34,000 $86,000 $34,000 $497,000 $497,000
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Harrison Archibald Secondary 0.49 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Archibald Hellman (Keller SBD Co.)Secondary 1.15 0 4 78%1.01 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,146,000 $496,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $115,000 $287,000 $164,000 $2,208,000 $2,208,000
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 0 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 500 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $9,600,000 $0 $0 $960,000 $2,400,000 $960,000 $13,920,000 $0
Northwest Eastvale River Hellman Archibald Secondary 0.75 2 4 48%0.78 1 2 0 0 0 0 $883,000 $4,243,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $88,000 $221,000 $513,000 $5,948,000 $5,948,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Armstrong San Bernardino County Valley Secondary 1.53 2 4 34%2.02 2 3 0 0 0 0 $3,518,000 $991,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $352,000 $880,000 $451,000 $6,192,000 $6,192,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Bellegrave Cantu-Galleano Ranch Van Buren Secondary 0.29 2 4 63%0.21 1 3 0 0 0 0 $241,000 $104,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $60,000 $35,000 $464,000 $464,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Cantu-Galleano Ranch Wineville Bellegrave Secondary 1.82 0 2 90%0.36 1 3 0 0 0 0 $412,000 $178,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,000 $103,000 $59,000 $793,000 $793,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda Philadelphia SR-60 Secondary 1.05 4 6 67%0.69 1 3 0 0 0 0 $786,000 $340,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $79,000 $197,000 $113,000 $1,515,000 $989,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda SR-60 Limonite Secondary 2.95 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite I-15 Wineville Secondary 0.47 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Wineville Etiwanda Secondary 0.99 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Etiwanda Van Buren Secondary 2.73 2 4 75%1.37 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,547,000 $670,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $155,000 $387,000 $222,000 $2,981,000 $2,981,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Van Buren Clay Secondary 0.79 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Clay Riverview Secondary 2.45 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Rubidoux Santa Ana River Secondary 1.19 2 4 0%2.38 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,690,000 $1,164,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $269,000 $673,000 $385,000 $5,181,000 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Santa Ana River bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 1,000 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $9,600,000 $0 $0 $960,000 $2,400,000 $960,000 $13,920,000 $6,204,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission Milliken SR-60 Secondary 2.10 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission SR-60 Santa Ana River Secondary 7.24 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Riverview Limonite Mission Secondary 0.95 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux Pine Mission Secondary 2.90 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux SR-60 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 2 3 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $9,051,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Valley Armstrong Mission Secondary 0.48 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 1st Parkridge Mountain Secondary 0.26 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 1st Mountain Hamner Secondary 0.26 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 2nd River I-15 Secondary 1.39 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 6th Hamner California Secondary 1.71 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 6th I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $3,489,000
Northwest Norco Arlington Crestview Fairhaven Secondary 1.00 2 4 0%1.99 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,254,000 $976,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $564,000 $323,000 $4,342,000 $4,342,000
Northwest Norco California Arlington 6th Secondary 1.05 2 4 5%2.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $2,262,000 $10,870,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $226,000 $566,000 $1,313,000 $15,237,000 $12,525,000
Northwest Norco Corydon River 5th Secondary 1.46 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River bridge Secondary 0.00 2 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 1,200 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $23,040,000 $0 $0 $2,304,000 $5,760,000 $2,304,000 $33,408,000 $11,455,000
Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River Hidden Valley Secondary 3.25 4 6 0%6.50 1 2 0 0 0 0 $7,362,000 $35,378,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $736,000 $1,841,000 $4,274,000 $49,591,000 $49,591,000
Northwest Norco Hidden Valley I-15 Norco Hills Secondary 1.46 4 4 0%0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco Hidden Valley Hamner I-15 Secondary 0.19 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco Norco Corydon Hamner Secondary 1.20 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco North California Crestview Secondary 0.25 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco River Archibald Corydon Secondary 1.14 2 4 90%0.23 1 2 0 0 0 0 $259,000 $1,243,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,000 $65,000 $150,000 $1,743,000 $1,109,000
Northwest Riverside 14th Market Martin Luther King Secondary 0.89 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside 1st Market Main Secondary 0.08 2 2 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside 3rd SR-91 I-215 Secondary 1.34 3 4 81%0.25 1 2 0 0 0 0 $288,000 $1,385,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $72,000 $167,000 $1,941,000 $1,941,000
Northwest Riverside 3rd BNSF railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $72,800,000 $0 $7,280,000 $18,200,000 $7,280,000 $105,560,000 $30,560,000
Northwest Riverside Adams Arlington SR-91 Secondary 1.56 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 Lincoln Secondary 0.54 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $3,262,000
Northwest Riverside Arlington Fairhaven La Sierra Secondary 0.61 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Buena Vista Santa Ana River Redwood Secondary 0.30 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Martin Luther King Central Secondary 0.95 4 4 0%0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Central Country Club Secondary 0.59 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Country Club Via Vista Secondary 0.93 2 4 12%1.63 2 3 0 0 0 0 $2,839,000 $799,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $284,000 $710,000 $364,000 $4,996,000 $1,593,000
Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Via Vista Alessandro Secondary 0.68 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Chicago I-215/SR-60 Secondary 2.22 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central SR-91 Magnolia Secondary 0.73 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Alessandro SR-91 Secondary 2.09 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Van Buren Magnolia Secondary 3.53 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Chicago Alessandro Spruce Secondary 3.43 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Chicago Spruce Columbia Secondary 0.75 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Columbia Main Iowa Secondary 1.09 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Columbia I-215 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $9,050,000
Northwest Riverside Iowa Center 3rd Secondary 2.26 4 6 12%3.97 1 2 0 0 0 0 $4,494,000 $21,596,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $449,000 $1,124,000 $2,609,000 $30,272,000 $30,272,000
Northwest Riverside Iowa 3rd University Secondary 0.51 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Iowa University Martin Luther King Secondary 0.51 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside JFK Trautwein Wood Secondary 0.48 2 4 10%0.86 1 3 0 0 0 0 $976,000 $422,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $98,000 $244,000 $140,000 $1,880,000 $1,880,000
Northwest Riverside La Sierra Arlington SR-91 Secondary 3.56 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside La Sierra SR-91 Indiana Secondary 0.19 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $133,000 $13,000 $33,000 $13,000 $192,000 $192,000
Northwest Riverside La Sierra Indiana Victoria Secondary 0.78 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $536,000 $54,000 $134,000 $54,000 $778,000 $778,000
Northwest Riverside Lemon (NB One way)Mission Inn University Secondary 0.08 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Van Buren Jefferson Secondary 2.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Jefferson Washington Secondary 1.00 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Washington Victoria Secondary 1.43 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Madison SR-91 Victoria Secondary 0.86 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $588,000 $59,000 $147,000 $59,000 $853,000 $853,000
Northwest Riverside Madison BNSF railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 2 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,800,000 $0 $1,380,000 $3,450,000 $1,380,000 $20,010,000 $20,010,000
Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF Railroad Tyler Secondary 2.70 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia Tyler Harrison Secondary 0.65 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia Harrison 14th Secondary 5.98 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Main 1st San Bernardino County Secondary 2.19 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Market 14th Santa Ana River Secondary 2.59 2 4 76%1.24 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,409,000 $6,771,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $141,000 $352,000 $818,000 $9,491,000 $9,491,000
Northwest Riverside Martin Luther King 14th I-215/SR-60 Secondary 2.22 4 6 29%3.15 1 2 0 0 0 0 $3,567,000 $17,144,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $357,000 $892,000 $2,071,000 $24,031,000 $24,031,000
Northwest Riverside Mission Inn Redwood Lemon Secondary 0.79 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Redwood (SB One way)Mission Inn University Secondary 0.08 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Trautwein Alessandro Van Buren Secondary 2.19 4 4 0%0.00 2 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 Magnolia Secondary 0.43 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $21,814,000
Northwest Riverside Tyler Magnolia Hole Secondary 0.27 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler Hole Wells Secondary 1.06 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler Wells Arlington Secondary 1.35 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside University Redwood SR-91 Secondary 0.86 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $593,000 $59,000 $148,000 $59,000 $859,000 $859,000
Northwest Riverside University SR-91 I-215/SR-60 Secondary 2.08 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,425,000 $143,000 $356,000 $143,000 $2,067,000 $2,067,000
Northwest Riverside Victoria Lincoln Arlington Secondary 0.16 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Victoria Madison Washington Secondary 0.52 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Washington Victoria Hermosa Secondary 2.06 2 4 14%3.54 1 2 0 0 0 0 $4,011,000 $19,274,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $401,000 $1,003,000 $2,329,000 $27,018,000 $27,018,000
Northwest Riverside Wood JFK Van Buren Secondary 0.70 2 4 0%1.40 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,585,000 $686,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $159,000 $396,000 $227,000 $3,053,000 $3,053,000
Northwest Riverside Wood Van Buren Bergamont Secondary 0.11 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Wood Bergamont Krameria Secondary 0.39 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-1 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate Updated: July 23, 2024
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORK MILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSE INTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING ITS NEWLNCOST ROWCOST INTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOST ITSCOST PLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Northwest Unincorporated Cantu-Galleano Ranch Hamner Wineville Secondary 0.94 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Dos Lagos (Weirick)Temescal Canyon I-15 Secondary 0.17 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated El Cerrito I-15 Ontario Secondary 0.56 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated El Sobrante Mockingbird Canyon Cajalco Secondary 1.05 2 2 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Washington Scottsdale Secondary 0.12 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Scottsdale Cajalco Secondary 1.19 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra Victoria El Sobrante Secondary 2.23 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra El Sobrante Cajalco Secondary 2.36 2 2 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Mockingbird Canyon Van Buren El Sobrante Secondary 3.41 2 4 0%6.82 2 3 0 0 0 0 $11,860,000 $3,340,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,186,000 $2,965,000 $1,520,000 $20,871,000 $20,871,000
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon El Cerrito Tuscany Secondary 0.65 2 4 20%1.03 2 3 0 0 0 0 $1,800,000 $507,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 $450,000 $231,000 $3,168,000 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Tuscany Dos Lagos Secondary 0.91 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dos Lagos Leroy Secondary 1.10 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Leroy Dawson Canyon Secondary 1.89 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dawson Canyon I-15 Secondary 0.49 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 2 3 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 Park Canyon Secondary 2.02 2 4 10%3.63 3 3 0 0 0 0 $8,533,000 $1,779,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $853,000 $2,133,000 $1,031,000 $14,329,000 $14,329,000
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail Secondary 2.55 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Washington Hermosa Harley John Secondary 3.96 2 4 26%5.86 1 3 0 0 0 0 $6,638,000 $2,874,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $664,000 $1,660,000 $951,000 $12,787,000 $12,787,000
Northwest Unincorporated Wood Krameria Cajalco Secondary 2.99 2 4 4%5.75 1 3 0 0 0 0 $6,509,000 $2,817,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $651,000 $1,627,000 $933,000 $12,537,000 $12,537,000
Pass Banning 8th Wilson I-10 Secondary 0.54 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Lincoln Sunset SR-243 Secondary 2.01 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Ramsey I-10 8th Secondary 1.70 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Ramsey 8th Highland Springs Secondary 3.55 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning SR-243 I-10 Wesley Secondary 0.62 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Home Sunset Secondary 1.00 0 4 0%4.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $4,528,000 $21,760,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $453,000 $1,132,000 $2,629,000 $30,502,000 $30,502,000
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Smith Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 0 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $5,760,000 $0 $0 $576,000 $1,440,000 $576,000 $8,352,000 $8,352,000
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Montgomery Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 0 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 200 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $3,840,000 $0 $0 $384,000 $960,000 $384,000 $5,568,000 $5,568,000
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Springs Highland Home Secondary 1.33 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Sunset Ramsey Lincoln Secondary 0.28 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Sunset I-10 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Pass Banning Wilson Highland Home 8th Secondary 2.51 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Wilson Highland Springs Highland Home Secondary 1.01 4 4 100%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 1st Viele Pennsylvania Secondary 1.28 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 1st Pennsylvania Highland Springs Secondary 1.10 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 6th I-10 Highland Springs Secondary 2.24 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Desert Lawn Champions Oak Valley (STC)Secondary 0.99 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)Highland Springs Pennsylvania Secondary 1.13 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)Pennsylvania Oak View Secondary 1.40 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)Oak View I-10 Secondary 0.65 4 4 50%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)I-10 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $62,401,000
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC)UP Railroad Tukwet Canyon Secondary 2.94 2 2 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC)Tukwet Canyon I-10 Secondary 2.58 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania 6th 1st Secondary 0.53 2 4 18%0.86 1 2 0 0 0 0 $978,000 $4,699,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $98,000 $245,000 $568,000 $6,588,000 $6,588,000
Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania I-10 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Bryant County Line Avenue L Secondary 0.38 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Calimesa County Line I-10 Secondary 0.80 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Calimesa I-10 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $63,061,000
Pass Calimesa County Line 7th Bryant Secondary 1.83 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa County Line I-10 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Pass Calimesa Desert Lawn Palmer Champions Secondary 1.42 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Singleton Avenue L Condit Secondary 1.86 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Singleton Condit Roberts Secondary 0.85 2 4 0%1.70 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,926,000 $9,253,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $193,000 $482,000 $1,118,000 $12,972,000 $12,972,000
Pass Calimesa Singleton I-10 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $0
Pass Calimesa Tukwet Canyon Roberts Rd Palmer Secondary 0.25 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Live Oak Canyon Oak Valley (STC)San Bernardino County Secondary 2.81 2 2 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon San Bernardino County UP Railroad Secondary 5.65 2 2 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon UP Railroad railroad crossing Secondary 0.00 2 2 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 1 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,400,000 $0 $3,640,000 $9,100,000 $3,640,000 $52,780,000 $52,780,000
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Acacia Menlo Secondary 0.98 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Domenigoni Stetson Secondary 1.09 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson RR Crossing Acacia Secondary 0.42 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Stetson RR Crossing Secondary 0.58 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Menlo Esplanade Secondary 1.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida)Warren Cawston Secondary 1.02 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida)Columbia Ramona Secondary 2.58 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74/SR-79 (Florida)Cawston Columbia Secondary 4.03 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Domenigoni Chambers Secondary 1.31 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Chambers Stetson Secondary 0.51 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Florida Esplanade Secondary 1.74 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Stetson Florida Secondary 1.25 2 2 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Cawston State Secondary 2.52 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Warren Cawston Secondary 1.00 2 4 0%2.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,262,000 $979,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $226,000 $566,000 $324,000 $4,357,000 $4,357,000
San Jacinto Hemet Warren Esplanade Domenigoni Secondary 5.02 2 4 9%9.14 1 3 0 0 0 0 $10,345,000 $4,478,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,035,000 $2,586,000 $1,482,000 $19,926,000 $19,926,000
San Jacinto Hemet Warren Salt Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $4,176,000
San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Mountain State Secondary 2.55 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade State Warren Secondary 3.53 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Sanderson Ramona Esplanade Secondary 3.55 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (North Ramona)State San Jacinto Secondary 1.02 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto)North Ramona Blvd 7th Secondary 0.25 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto)7th SR-74 Secondary 2.25 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto State Ramona Esplanade Secondary 1.99 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto State Gilman Springs Quandt Ranch Secondary 0.76 2 4 0%1.52 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,722,000 $745,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 $431,000 $247,000 $3,317,000 $3,317,000
San Jacinto San Jacinto State San Jacinto River bridge Secondary 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 500 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto State Quandt Ranch Ramona Secondary 0.70 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Warren Ramona Esplanade Secondary 3.47 2 4 11%6.18 1 3 0 0 0 0 $6,993,000 $3,027,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $699,000 $1,748,000 $1,002,000 $13,469,000 $13,469,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Sanderson State Secondary 2.54 2 4 0%5.09 1 3 0 0 0 0 $5,761,000 $2,494,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $576,000 $1,440,000 $826,000 $11,097,000 $11,097,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Massacre Canyon Wash bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 100 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $960,000 $0 $0 $96,000 $240,000 $96,000 $1,392,000 $1,392,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)SR-74 (Florida)Domenigoni Secondary 3.23 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-1 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate Updated: July 23, 2024
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO NETWORK MILES EXISTINGLN FUTURELN % COMPLETE INCREASELN MILES TOPO LANDUSE INTERCHG BRIDGE RRXING ITS NEWLNCOST ROWCOST INTCHGCOST BRDGCOST RRXCOST ITSCOST PLNG ENG CONTIG TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHARE
Southwest Lake Elsinore Corydon Mission Grand Secondary 1.53 2 4 50%1.53 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,732,000 $750,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $173,000 $433,000 $248,000 $3,336,000 $3,336,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Diamond Mission I-15 Secondary 0.24 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Franklin (integral to Railroad Canyon Interchange) I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 3 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $32,698,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Lincoln Toft Secondary 1.29 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Toft SR-74 (Riverside)Secondary 0.86 2 4 6%1.61 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,824,000 $789,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $182,000 $456,000 $261,000 $3,512,000 $3,512,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 Lincoln Secondary 3.25 2 4 28%4.68 2 2 0 0 0 0 $8,144,000 $25,462,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $814,000 $2,036,000 $3,361,000 $39,817,000 $32,726,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 2 2 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $15,771,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake Temescal Wash bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 2 2 0 180 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,728,000 $0 $0 $173,000 $432,000 $173,000 $2,506,000 $1,150,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Mission Railroad Canyon Bundy Canyon Secondary 2.39 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 Lake Secondary 1.80 2 4 0%3.60 1 3 0 0 0 0 $4,075,000 $1,764,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $408,000 $1,019,000 $584,000 $7,850,000 $7,850,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols Temescal Wash bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 300 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,880,000 $0 $0 $288,000 $720,000 $288,000 $4,176,000 $4,176,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 3 2 0 0 0 $0 $0 $43,490,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,349,000 $10,873,000 $4,349,000 $63,061,000 $63,061,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Collier/Riverside)I-15 Lakeshore Secondary 2.15 2 4 26%3.19 1 2 0 0 0 0 $3,608,000 $17,337,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $361,000 $902,000 $2,095,000 $24,303,000 $24,303,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Grand)Riverside SR-74 (Ortega)Secondary 0.64 2 4 0%1.28 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,445,000 $6,943,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $145,000 $361,000 $839,000 $9,733,000 $3,691,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Riverside)Lakeshore Grand Secondary 1.74 2 4 24%2.65 1 2 0 0 0 0 $2,995,000 $14,392,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $749,000 $1,739,000 $20,175,000 $20,175,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon I-15 Lake Secondary 1.21 2 4 0%2.42 2 3 0 0 0 0 $4,211,000 $1,186,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $421,000 $1,053,000 $540,000 $7,411,000 $7,411,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon Temescal Wash bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 250 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000 $0 $0 $240,000 $600,000 $240,000 $3,480,000 $3,480,000
Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jefferson I-15 Secondary 0.32 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta California Oaks I-15 Jackson Secondary 0.50 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jackson Clinton Keith Secondary 1.76 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Jackson Whitewood Ynez Secondary 0.53 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Palomar Nutmeg Secondary 1.02 0 2 75%0.51 2 3 0 0 0 0 $887,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $89,000 $222,000 $114,000 $1,562,000 $1,562,000
Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Nutmeg Murrieta Hot Springs Secondary 2.37 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Murrieta Hot Springs Cherry Secondary 2.26 4 6 11%4.02 1 2 0 0 0 0 $4,548,000 $21,854,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $455,000 $1,137,000 $2,640,000 $30,634,000 $30,634,000
Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 Whitewood Backbone 0.75 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 interchange Backbone 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Los Alamos Jefferson I-215 Secondary 1.77 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson I-215 Secondary 1.16 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs I-215 Margarita Secondary 1.45 6 6 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Margarita SR-79 (Winchester)Secondary 1.01 4 6 8%1.86 1 3 0 0 0 0 $2,106,000 $911,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $211,000 $527,000 $302,000 $4,057,000 $3,899,000
Southwest Murrieta Nutmeg Jefferson Clinton Keith Secondary 1.97 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Clinton Keith Los Alamos Secondary 2.01 3 4 56%0.88 2 3 0 0 0 0 $1,539,000 $433,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $154,000 $385,000 $197,000 $2,708,000 $2,708,000
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Los Alamos Murrieta Hot Springs Secondary 1.93 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Murrieta Hot Springs Jackson Secondary 0.80 0 2 66%0.54 2 2 0 0 0 0 $947,000 $2,959,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,000 $237,000 $391,000 $4,629,000 $4,629,000
Southwest Murrieta Ynez Jackson SR-79 (Winchester)Secondary 1.22 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Murrieta Hot Springs Calle Chapos Secondary 0.82 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $563,000 $56,000 $141,000 $56,000 $816,000 $816,000
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Calle Chapos La Serena Secondary 0.70 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $480,000 $48,000 $120,000 $48,000 $696,000 $696,000
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage La Serena Rancho California Secondary 0.91 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $624,000 $62,000 $156,000 $62,000 $904,000 $904,000
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Rancho California Pauba Secondary 0.85 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $584,000 $58,000 $146,000 $58,000 $846,000 $846,000
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Pauba SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)Secondary 1.69 2 4 93%0.24 2 3 0 0 0 0 $412,000 $116,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,000 $103,000 $53,000 $725,000 $725,000
Southwest Temecula Jefferson Cherry Rancho California Secondary 2.29 4 4 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,575,000 $158,000 $394,000 $158,000 $2,285,000 $2,285,000
Southwest Temecula Margarita Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)Secondary 7.68 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,272,000 $527,000 $1,318,000 $527,000 $7,644,000 $7,644,000
Southwest Temecula Old Town Front Rancho California I-15/SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)Secondary 1.45 4 4 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)Via Gilberto Secondary 1.32 6 6 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy Via Gilberto Pechanga Pkwy Secondary 1.44 4 4 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Rancho California Jefferson Margarita Secondary 1.89 4 6 53%1.78 1 1 0 0 0 0 $2,015,000 $13,938,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $202,000 $504,000 $1,595,000 $18,254,000 $18,181,000
Southwest Temecula Rancho California I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 1 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $0
Southwest Temecula Rancho California Margarita Butterfield Stage Secondary 1.96 4 4 0%0.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)I-15 Pechanga Pkwy Secondary 0.90 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)Pechanga Pkwy Butterfield Stage Secondary 3.08 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,114,000 $211,000 $529,000 $211,000 $3,065,000 $3,065,000
Southwest Unincorporated Briggs Scott SR-79 (Winchester)Secondary 3.39 2 4 56%2.98 1 3 0 0 0 0 $3,379,000 $1,463,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $338,000 $845,000 $484,000 $6,509,000 $6,509,000
Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Tucalota Creek bridge Secondary 0.00 4 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 200 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage (Pourroy)Auld Murrieta Hot Springs Secondary 2.27 0 4 17%7.54 2 3 0 0 0 0 $13,113,000 $3,693,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,311,000 $3,278,000 $1,681,000 $23,076,000 $23,076,000
Southwest Unincorporated Grand Ortega Corydon Secondary 4.96 2 4 10%8.92 1 2 0 0 0 0 $10,098,000 $48,529,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,010,000 $2,525,000 $5,863,000 $68,025,000 $68,025,000
Southwest Unincorporated Horsethief Canyon Temescal Canyon I-15 Secondary 0.17 2 2 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Indian Truck Trail Temescal Canyon I-15 Secondary 0.18 6 6 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Winchester)Pourroy Secondary 1.75 4 4 0%0.00 1 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Pala Pechanga San Diego County Secondary 1.39 2 2 0%0.00 2 3 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Pourroy SR-79 (Winchester)Auld Secondary 2.28 2 4 84%0.73 2 3 0 0 0 0 $1,270,000 $358,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $127,000 $318,000 $163,000 $2,236,000 $2,236,000
Southwest Unincorporated Rancho California Butterfield Stage Glen Oaks Secondary 4.26 2 4 0%8.52 1 1 0 0 0 0 $9,645,000 $66,712,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $965,000 $2,411,000 $7,636,000 $87,369,000 $87,369,000
Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Horsethief Canyon Wash bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 240 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $2,304,000 $0 $0 $230,000 $576,000 $230,000 $3,340,000 $3,340,000
Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Truck Trail I-15 Secondary 2.57 2 4 0%5.14 2 3 0 0 0 0 $8,944,000 $2,519,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $894,000 $2,236,000 $1,146,000 $15,739,000 $15,739,000
Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Wash bridge Secondary 0.00 2 4 0%0.00 2 3 0 105 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $1,008,000 $0 $0 $101,000 $252,000 $101,000 $1,462,000 $1,462,000
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Mission I-15 Secondary 0.94 2 4 32%1.27 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,441,000 $6,923,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $360,000 $836,000 $9,704,000 $9,704,000
Southwest Wildomar Grand Corydon Wildomar Trail Secondary 2.02 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Mission Bundy Canyon Palomar Secondary 0.84 4 4 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Palomar Clinton Keith Washington Secondary 0.74 2 4 0%1.48 1 3 0 0 0 0 $1,675,000 $725,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $168,000 $419,000 $240,000 $3,227,000 $3,227,000
Southwest Wildomar Palomar Mission Clinton Keith Secondary 2.79 2 4 21%4.41 2 3 0 0 0 0 $7,667,000 $2,159,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $767,000 $1,917,000 $983,000 $13,493,000 $13,493,000
Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 Baxter Secondary 0.29 2 4 0%0.59 1 3 0 0 0 0 $665,000 $288,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,000 $166,000 $95,000 $1,281,000 $1,281,000
Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 interchange Secondary 0.00 0 0 0%0.00 1 3 3 0 0 0 $0 $0 $22,550,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,255,000 $5,638,000 $2,255,000 $32,698,000 $27,858,000
Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Baxter Palomar Secondary 0.74 2 4 0%1.48 1 2 0 0 0 0 $1,680,000 $8,073,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $168,000 $420,000 $975,000 $11,316,000 $11,316,000
Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Palomar Grand Secondary 0.51 2 2 0%0.00 1 2 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal Secondary 469.28 240.56 22 8,650 6 26.75 $303,507,000 $590,248,000 $621,740,000 $101,280,000 $237,200,000 $18,358,000 $128,215,000 $320,544,000 $187,237,000 $2,508,329,000 $1,913,028,000
Totals Network 739.22 558.58 33 17,485 9 33.89 741,859,000$ 1,272,869,000$ 1,057,070,000$ 176,256,000$ 374,000,000$ 23,259,000$ 237,252,000$ 593,150,000$ 364,535,000$ 4,840,250,000$ 3,874,735,000$
Transit 217,870,000$ 154,831,000$
Administration 161,183,000$ 161,183,000$
MSHCP 64,606,000$ 53,859,000$
TOTAL 5,283,909,000$ 4,244,608,000$
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-2 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate - Existing Need and Obligated Funding Updated: July 23, 2024
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHAREMAX TUMF MSHCP SHARE EXIST NEED LOS E&F SEGMENT DESCRIPTION % EXIST NEED >2 LANE ADJST EXIST V/C FUTURE V/C TUMF V/C SHARE EXIST NEED
OBLIGATED UNFUND EXIST NEED MSHCP MSHCP EXIST NEED MSHCP UNFUND EXIST NEED COMBINED UNFUND EXIST NEED
Central Menifee Ethanac Goetz Murrieta $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.27 0.87 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Ethanac Murrieta I-215 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.29 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Ethanac I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0%0%0.62 1.21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Ethanac Sherman Matthews $2,674,000 $2,674,000 $69,000 0%0%0.32 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $69,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Ethanac BNSF San Jacinto Branch railroad crossing $105,560,000 $105,560,000 $3,640,000 0%0%0.32 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $3,640,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee SR-74 (Pinacate)Simpson $1,307,000 $1,307,000 $34,000 Between Rouse and Matthews 11%11%0.70 0.98 $0 $0 $0 $34,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Salt Creek bridge $4,384,000 $4,384,000 $151,000 0%0%0.36 0.55 $0 $0 $0 $151,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Simpson Aldergate $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.39 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Aldergate Newport $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.45 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Newport Holland $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.44 0.72 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Holland Garbani $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.41 0.54 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee Garbani Scott $4,353,000 $4,353,000 $113,000 0%0%0.64 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Menifee/Whitewood Scott Murrieta City Limit $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.44 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Goetz Murrieta $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.59 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Murrieta I-215 $1,130,000 $1,130,000 $29,000 Between Pacific Channel and Winter Hawk, and SB I-215 Exit Ramp and SB I-215 On Ramp 27%27%0.84 1.08 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport I-215 Menifee $0 $0 $0 Between Menifee Lakes to Menifee, and I-215 SB On Ramp to Antelope 36%36%0.93 1.08 85%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Menifee Lindenberger $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.66 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Newport Lindenberger SR-79 (Winchester)$0 $0 $0 0%0%0.51 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Scott I-215 Briggs $8,635,000 $8,635,000 $224,000 Between SB I-215 On Ramp and Antelope 5%5%0.45 0.82 $0 $0 $0 $224,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Scott I-215 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%1.17 1.54 57%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Scott Sunset Murrieta $4,388,000 $4,388,000 $114,000 0%0%0.94 1.32 91%$0 $0 $0 $114,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Scott Murrieta I-215 $16,949,000 $12,949,000 $336,000 0%0%0.72 1.03 $0 $4,000,000 $0 $440,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee SR-74 Matthews Briggs $8,254,000 $8,254,000 $214,000 0%0%0.72 0.98 $0 $0 $0 $214,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro I-215 Perris $13,420,000 $13,420,000 $100,000 0%0%0.61 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Perris Nason $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.55 0.75 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Nason Moreno Beach $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.22 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Alessandro Moreno Beach Gilman Springs $18,019,000 $18,019,000 $468,000 0%0%0.24 0.66 $0 $0 $0 $468,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 Alessandro $7,291,000 $7,291,000 $189,000 0%0%0.65 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $189,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Gilman Springs SR-60 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.60 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris Reche Vista Ironwood $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.34 0.46 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris Ironwood Sunnymead $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.74 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $11,192,000 $0 0%0%2.03 2.62 34%$21,506,000 $0 $21,506,000 $0 $0 $0 $21,506,000
Central Moreno Valley Perris Sunnymead Cactus $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.62 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Perris Cactus Harley Knox $0 $0 $0 Between Nandina and Harley Knox 18%18%0.69 1.01 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Reche Vista Country Heacock $7,486,000 $3,799,000 $39,000 Moreno Valley City Limit to Heacock 100%100%0.92 0.95 51%$3,687,000 $0 $3,687,000 $77,000 $38,000 $38,000 $3,725,000
Central Perris 11th/Case Perris Goetz $4,582,000 $4,582,000 $34,000 0%0%0.76 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $34,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Case Goetz I-215 $20,876,000 $20,876,000 $155,000 Between Ellis and Murrietta 40%40%0.80 1.18 $0 $0 $0 $155,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Case San Jacinto River bridge $1,740,000 $1,235,000 $43,000 0%0%1.18 1.88 71%$505,000 $0 $505,000 $60,000 $0 $0 $505,000
Central Perris Ethanac Keystone Goetz $6,056,000 $6,056,000 $157,000 0%0%0.07 0.30 $0 $0 $0 $157,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Ethanac San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 $192,000 0%0%0.07 0.30 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Ethanac I-215 Sherman $5,316,000 $5,316,000 $39,000 0%0%0.53 1.15 $0 $0 $0 $39,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Goetz Case Ethanac $1,507,000 $999,000 $26,000 Between Case and Ethanac 100%100%1.06 1.38 66%$508,000 $0 $508,000 $39,000 $13,000 $13,000 $521,000
Central Perris Goetz San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $3,398,000 $117,000 0%0%1.13 1.50 61%$2,170,000 $0 $2,170,000 $192,000 $0 $0 $2,170,000
Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia)I-215 Perris $15,655,000 $15,655,000 $116,000 0%0%0.05 0.21 $0 $0 $0 $116,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia)I-215 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.46 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia)Perris Evans $22,985,000 $22,985,000 $171,000 0%0%0.03 0.11 $0 $0 $0 $171,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Mid-County (Placentia)Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 $288,000 0%0%0.03 0.11 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Perris Harley Knox Ramona $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.86 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Perris Ramona Citrus $7,063,000 $7,063,000 $183,000 Between Ramona and Dawes, and Rider and Water 39%39%0.83 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $183,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Perris Citrus Nuevo $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.66 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Perris Nuevo 11th $6,927,000 $6,927,000 $51,000 0%0%0.72 0.99 $0 $0 $0 $51,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Perris I-215 overcrossing bridge $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.78 1.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Ramona I-215 Perris $5,039,000 $5,039,000 $37,000 Between NB I-215 On Ramp and Webster 26%26%0.77 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $37,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Ramona I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $7,725,000 $0 0%0%1.80 2.08 24%$24,973,000 $0 $24,973,000 $0 $0 $0 $24,973,000
Central Perris Ramona Perris Evans $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.67 0.82 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Ramona Evans Mid-County (2,800 ft E of Rider)$0 $0 $0 0%0%0.62 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris SR-74 (4th)Ellis I-215 $0 $0 $0 Between Navajo and S A St 22%22%0.78 1.03 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Ethanac SR-74 Keystone $4,666,000 $4,666,000 $121,000 0%0%0.04 0.19 $0 $0 $0 $121,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Gilman Springs Alessandro Bridge Road $30,601,000 $30,601,000 $869,000 Between Olive and Jackrabbit 41%41%0.87 1.43 $0 $0 $0 $869,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Menifee Nuevo SR-74 (Pinacate)$16,684,000 $16,684,000 $433,000 0%0%0.69 0.98 $0 $0 $0 $433,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Mid-County Evans Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider)$12,156,000 $12,156,000 $362,000 0%0%0.08 0.45 $0 $0 $0 $362,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona)Ramona (2,800 ft E of Rider)Pico Avenue $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.37 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona)Pico Avenue Bridge Road $47,769,000 $47,769,000 $1,240,000 0%0%0.82 1.43 $0 $0 $0 $1,240,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona)San Jacinto River bridge $36,192,000 $36,192,000 $1,248,000 0%0%0.78 1.33 $0 $0 $0 $1,248,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon San Bernardino County Reche Vista $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.84 0.91 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Reche Vista Reche Canyon Country $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.81 0.83 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Scott Briggs SR-79 (Winchester)$0 $0 $0 0%0%0.12 0.53 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated SR-74 Ethanac Ellis $0 $0 $0 Between Ethanac and Theda, and Mountain and Sofie 34%34%0.87 1.17 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 Temescal Canyon $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.47 0.62 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco I-15 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%1.59 2.08 42%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Paseo Grande Lincoln $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.45 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Wardlow Wash bridge $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.47 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill Lincoln California $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.30 0.42 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Foothill California I-15 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.29 0.42 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Green River SR-91 Dominguez Ranch $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.53 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Green River Dominguez Ranch Palisades $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.53 0.60 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Green River Palisades Paseo Grande $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.66 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman San Bernardino County 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek $648,000 $648,000 $0 0%0%0.65 1.23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Cucamonga Creek bridge $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.72 1.27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek Harrison $866,000 $866,000 $0 0%0%0.69 1.17 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Harrison Sumner $488,000 $488,000 $0 Between Spicewood and Sumner 18%18%0.62 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Sumner Scholar $7,625,000 $7,625,000 $57,000 0%0%0.85 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman Scholar A Street $119,000 $119,000 $1,000 0%0%0.50 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Schleisman A Street Hamner $209,000 $209,000 $2,000 0%0%0.50 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren SR-60 Bellegrave $23,928,000 $10,461,000 $78,000 Between SR-60 and Bellegrave 100%100%1.02 1.10 44%$13,467,000 $0 $13,467,000 $178,000 $100,000 $100,000 $13,567,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Van Buren Bellegrave Santa Ana River $60,900,000 $0 $0 Between Limonite and Santa Ana River, and Rutile and Bellegrave 59%59%1.03 1.13 44%$19,851,000 $60,900,000 $0 $452,000 $147,000 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Alessandro Arlington Trautwein $2,410,000 $2,410,000 $0 Between Arlington and Via Vista, and Canyon Crest and Trautwein 73%73%1.03 1.16 48%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Arlington La Sierra Magnolia $0 $0 $0 Between Ben Lomond and 300 ft East of Pegasus 13%13%0.68 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Arlington Magnolia Alessandro $46,465,000 $46,465,000 $475,000 Between Victoria and Alessandro 36%36%0.80 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $475,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Van Buren Santa Ana River SR-91 $5,230,000 $4,392,000 $33,000 Between Santa Ana River and Cypress 58%58%0.94 1.05 72%$838,000 $0 $838,000 $39,000 $6,000 $6,000 $844,000
Northwest Riverside Van Buren SR-91 Mockingbird Canyon $39,493,000 $21,292,000 $158,000 Between Mockingbird Canyon and Rudicill, and Indiana to SR-91 95%95%1.00 1.10 51%$18,201,000 $0 $18,201,000 $293,000 $135,000 $135,000 $18,336,000
Northwest Riverside Van Buren Wood Trautwein $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.79 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Van Buren Trautwein Orange Terrace $7,574,000 $7,574,000 $56,000 0%0%0.69 0.89 $0 $0 $0 $56,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Trautwein Vista Grande $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.79 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Alessandro Vista Grande I-215 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.85 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco El Sobrante Harley John $10,580,000 $9,817,000 $279,000 Between El Sobrante and Gavilan 40%20%0.95 1.04 64%$763,000 $0 $763,000 $301,000 $22,000 $22,000 $785,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harley John Harvil $166,492,000 $166,492,000 $1,236,000 Between Harley John and Wood, and Cole and Alexander, and Carroll and Seaton 63%31%0.87 1.05 $0 $0 $0 $1,236,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Harvil I-215 $1,238,000 $1,238,000 $32,000 0%0%0.78 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $32,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Canyon La Sierra $49,596,000 $35,953,000 $1,071,000 Between Temesacal Canyon and Sierra 100%50%1.06 1.19 45%$13,643,000 $0 $13,643,000 $1,477,000 $406,000 $406,000 $14,049,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco Temescal Wash bridge $4,872,000 $1,907,000 $66,000 0%0%1.13 1.27 39%$2,965,000 $0 $2,965,000 $168,000 $0 $0 $2,965,000
Northwest Unincorporated Cajalco La Sierra El Sobrante $96,453,000 $96,453,000 $2,872,000 0%0%0.78 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $2,872,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Mockingbird Canyon Wood $67,429,000 $67,429,000 $501,000 Between Washington and Wood 47%47%0.89 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $501,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Van Buren Orange Terrace I-215 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.71 0.99 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-2 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate - Existing Need and Obligated Funding Updated: July 23, 2024
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHAREMAX TUMF MSHCP SHARE EXIST NEED LOS E&F SEGMENT DESCRIPTION % EXIST NEED >2 LANE ADJST EXIST V/C FUTURE V/C TUMF V/C SHARE EXIST NEED
OBLIGATED UNFUND EXIST NEED MSHCP MSHCP EXIST NEED MSHCP UNFUND EXIST NEED COMBINED UNFUND EXIST NEED
Pass Banning Highland Springs Wilson (8th)Sun Lakes $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.46 0.68 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Highland Springs I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $32,516,000 $0 0%0%1.16 1.43 52%$30,545,000 $14,698,000 $15,847,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,847,000
Pass Banning Highland Springs Oak Valley (14th)Wilson (8th)$0 $0 $0 0%0%0.29 0.49 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Highland Springs Cherry Valley Oak Valley (14th)$0 $0 $0 0%0%0.28 0.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 Morongo Trail (Apache Trail)$50,110,000 $50,110,000 $372,000 0%0%0.04 0.05 $0 $0 $0 $372,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000 $0 0%0%0.73 0.86 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South San Gorgonio bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 $144,000 0%0%0.26 0.31 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning I-10 Bypass South UP/Hargrave railroad crossing $52,780,000 $52,780,000 $1,820,000 0%0%0.26 0.31 $0 $0 $0 $1,820,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)I-10 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.31 0.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero Oak Valley (San Timoteo Canyon)SR-60 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $29,000 0%0%0.01 0.37 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 interchange $63,061,000 $29,561,000 $0 0%0%0.39 0.84 $0 $33,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero UP railroad crossing $40,020,000 $40,020,000 $1,380,000 0%0%0.01 0.37 $0 $0 $0 $1,380,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero Noble Creek bridge $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.01 0.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Potrero SR-60 4th $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.01 0.25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont)I-10 California $0 $0 $0 Between I-10 WB On Ramp and California 100%100%1.05 1.18 46%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont SR-79 (Beaumont)I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $7,408,000 $0 0%0%2.20 2.37 12%$55,653,000 $0 $55,653,000 $0 $0 $0 $55,653,000
Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $59,773,000 $0 0%0%0.93 1.51 95%$3,288,000 $443,000 $2,845,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,845,000
Pass Calimesa Cherry Valley Roberts St Roberts Rd $3,053,000 $3,053,000 $79,000 0%0%0.54 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $79,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Bellflower Noble $6,411,000 $6,411,000 $166,000 0%0%0.08 0.23 $0 $0 $0 $166,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Highland Springs Bellflower $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.03 0.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley Noble Roberts St $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.41 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Cherry Valley San Timoteo Wash bridge $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.26 0.41 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated SR-79 (Lamb Canyon)California Gilman Springs $0 $0 $0 Between California and Gilman Springs 100%100%1.21 1.43 42%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Warren Sanderson $7,726,000 $7,726,000 $201,000 0%0%0.82 1.13 $0 $0 $0 $201,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Domenigoni Sanderson State $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.41 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 Winchester Warren $35,208,000 $35,208,000 $261,000 Between Warren and 650 ft East of Cordoba 25%25%0.83 1.05 $0 $0 $0 $261,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona)Warren Sanderson $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.57 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Mid-County (Ramona)Sanderson/SR-79 (Hemet Bypass)interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.61 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Sanderson State $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.48 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona State Main $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.58 0.67 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Main Cedar $31,518,000 $26,928,000 $200,000 Between 7th and Rue Pinot Blanc, and Hemet and Mountain 68%34%0.93 0.97 57%$4,590,000 $0 $4,590,000 $234,000 $34,000 $34,000 $4,624,000
San Jacinto San Jacinto Ramona Cedar SR-74 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.29 0.35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni SR-79 (Winchester)Warren $13,508,000 $13,508,000 $351,000 0%0%0.88 1.13 $0 $0 $0 $351,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated Domenigoni San Diego Aqueduct bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 $144,000 0%0%0.88 1.12 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Bridge Sanderson $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.62 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated Mid-County (Ramona)Bridge Warren $9,221,000 $9,221,000 $239,000 0%0%0.78 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $239,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-74 Briggs SR-79 (Winchester)$15,417,000 $15,417,000 $400,000 Between Briggs and Sultanas 14%14%0.63 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass)SR-74 (Florida)Domenigoni $13,901,000 $13,901,000 $361,000 0%0%0.62 0.86 $0 $0 $0 $361,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass)San Diego Aqueduct bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 $144,000 0%0%0.62 0.86 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Hemet Bypass)Domenigoni Winchester $6,542,000 $6,542,000 $170,000 0%0%0.59 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $170,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (San Jacinto Bypass)Mid-County (Ramona)SR-74 (Florida)$56,690,000 $56,690,000 $1,472,000 0%0%0.55 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $1,472,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson)Gilman Springs Ramona $6,899,000 $2,555,000 $66,000 Between Ramona and Gilman Springs 100%100%1.18 1.34 37%$4,344,000 $0 $4,344,000 $179,000 $113,000 $113,000 $4,457,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Sanderson)San Jacinto River bridge $19,488,000 $7,651,000 $264,000 0%0%1.21 1.41 39%$11,837,000 $0 $11,837,000 $672,000 $0 $0 $11,837,000
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)Domenigoni Keller $65,022,000 $65,022,000 $483,000 0%0%0.55 0.82 $0 $0 $0 $483,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Canyon Lake Goetz Railroad Canyon Newport $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.35 0.53 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Canyon Lake Railroad Canyon Canyon Hills Goetz $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.71 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 Canyon Hills $0 $0 $0 Between NB I-5 On Ramp and Summerhill 2%2%0.86 1.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon I-15 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%2.48 3.04 26%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 I-15 interchange $63,061,000 $24,162,000 $0 0%0%1.60 2.03 38%$38,899,000 $0 $38,899,000 $0 $0 $0 $38,899,000
Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Copper Craft Toulon $0 $0 $0 Between California Oaks and Toulon 35%35%0.76 0.95 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith Toulon I-215 $2,076,000 $2,076,000 $54,000 Between Toulon and Thousand Oaks, and Duster and McElwain 52%52%0.88 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $54,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Clinton Keith I-215 Whitewood $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.67 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date)Murrieta Hot Springs Winchester Creek $7,321,000 $7,321,000 $54,000 0%0%0.77 1.21 $0 $0 $0 $54,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta French Valley (Date)Winchester Creek Margarita $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.04 0.08 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Menifee City Limit Keller $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.39 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Keller Clinton Keith $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.54 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry)Jefferson Diaz $3,929,000 $3,929,000 $29,000 0%0%0.00 0.58 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Cherry)Murrieta Creek bridge $5,846,000 $5,846,000 $202,000 0%0%0.00 0.58 $0 $0 $0 $202,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date)Margarita Ynez $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.20 0.34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date)Ynez Jefferson $5,010,000 $5,010,000 $37,000 0%0%0.07 0.15 $0 $0 $0 $37,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula French Valley (Date)I-15 interchange $122,076,000 $122,076,000 $0 0%0%0.19 0.29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester)Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson $2,697,000 $2,697,000 $0 Between Promenade Mall West and Murrieta Hot Springs, and I-15 NB On Ramp to 250 ft East of Jefferson Ave 84%84%0.96 1.24 81%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Winchester)I-15 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%1.58 1.80 24%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Diaz)Cherry Rancho California $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $17,000 0%0%0.18 0.45 $0 $0 $0 $17,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga)Rancho California SR-79 (Front)$23,629,000 $23,629,000 $296,000 0%0%0.01 0.05 $0 $0 $0 $296,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga)I-15 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%2.30 3.07 36%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Western Bypass (Vincent Moroga)Murrieta Creek bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 $144,000 0%0%0.01 0.05 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Benton SR-79 Eastern Bypass $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.26 0.35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Whitewood SR-79 $5,539,000 $5,539,000 $144,000 0%0%0.62 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Clinton Keith Warm Springs Creek bridge $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.62 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated SR-74 I-15 Ethanac $27,699,000 $26,347,000 $749,000 Between I-15 nd Dexter, and Conard and Riverside, and Steele Valley and Peach, and Meadowbrook and Ethanac 64%64%0.93 1.23 92%$1,352,000 $0 $1,352,000 $787,000 $38,000 $38,000 $1,390,000
Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)Keller Thompson $34,213,000 $34,213,000 $254,000 0%0%0.56 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $254,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)Thompson La Alba $27,699,000 $27,699,000 $206,000 Between La Alba and Via Mira Mosa 25%25%0.82 0.99 $0 $0 $0 $206,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)La Alba Hunter $7,854,000 $3,042,000 $22,000 Between La Alba and Hunter 100%100%1.10 1.22 39%$4,812,000 $0 $4,812,000 $58,000 $36,000 $36,000 $4,848,000
Southwest Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)Hunter Murrieta Hot Springs $595,000 $442,000 $11,000 Between Murrieta Hot Springs and Robert Jones, and Borel 75%75%0.95 1.04 66%$153,000 $0 $153,000 $15,000 $4,000 $4,000 $157,000
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 Monte Vista $1,362,000 $1,362,000 $39,000 Between I-15 NB On Ramp and Monte Vista 75%75%0.84 1.16 $0 $0 $0 $39,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Monte Vista Sunset $24,818,000 $24,818,000 $739,000 Between Monte Vista and Oak Circle 37%37%0.89 1.18 $0 $0 $0 $739,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $24,613,000 $0 0%0%1.12 1.77 75%$8,085,000 $0 $8,085,000 $0 $0 $0 $8,085,000
Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith Palomar I-15 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.69 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Clinton Keith I-15 Copper Craft $5,030,000 $0 $0 Between Inland Valley and Smith Ranch, and Covington and Copper Craft 60%60%0.89 1.01 $0 $5,030,000 $0 $143,000 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $2,331,921,000 $1,961,707,000 $30,262,000 10.8%$286,635,000 $118,571,000 $251,643,000 $32,508,000 $1,092,000 945,000 252,588,000
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-2 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate - Existing Need and Obligated Funding Updated: July 23, 2024
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHAREMAX TUMF MSHCP SHARE EXIST NEED LOS E&F SEGMENT DESCRIPTION % EXIST NEED >2 LANE ADJST EXIST V/C FUTURE V/C TUMF V/C SHARE EXIST NEED
OBLIGATED UNFUND EXIST NEED MSHCP MSHCP EXIST NEED MSHCP UNFUND EXIST NEED COMBINED UNFUND EXIST NEED
Central Menifee Briggs Newport Scott $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.18 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Briggs SR-74 (Pinacate)Simpson $2,991,000 $2,991,000 $78,000 0%0%0.05 0.23 $0 $0 $0 $78,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Briggs Simpson Old Newport $5,430,000 $5,430,000 $141,000 0%0%0.35 0.78 $0 $0 $0 $141,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Briggs Salt Creek bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 $288,000 0%0%0.41 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Garbani I-215 interchange $63,061,000 $42,483,000 $0 0%0%1.21 1.85 67%$20,578,000 $0 $20,578,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,578,000
Central Menifee Goetz Juanita Lesser Lane $11,378,000 $11,378,000 $295,000 0%0%0.70 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $295,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Goetz Newport Juanita $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.65 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Holland Murrieta Bradley $15,708,000 $15,708,000 $117,000 0%0%0.52 0.87 $0 $0 $0 $117,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Holland Bradley Haun $11,439,000 $11,439,000 $85,000 0%0%0.62 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Holland Haun Antelope $9,456,000 $9,456,000 $70,000 0%0%0.74 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Holland I-215 overcrossing bridge $9,744,000 $9,744,000 $336,000 0%0%0.76 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $336,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Holland Antelope Menifee $3,844,000 $3,844,000 $29,000 0%0%0.17 0.50 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee McCall I-215 Aspel $5,354,000 $5,354,000 $139,000 0%0%0.34 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $139,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee McCall I-215 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%1.58 2.02 39%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee McCall Aspel Menifee $2,288,000 $2,288,000 $59,000 0%0%0.38 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $59,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Murrieta Ethanac McCall $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.52 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Murrieta McCall Newport $7,967,000 $7,967,000 $207,000 0%0%0.60 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $207,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Menifee Murrieta Newport Bundy Canyon $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.43 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 Heacock $5,617,000 $5,617,000 $42,000 Between Goldencrest and Arial, and Frontage Road and 250 ft East 7%7%0.66 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $42,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Cactus I-215 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%1.22 1.43 40%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day Ironwood SR-60 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.53 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%1.03 1.21 60%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Day SR-60 Eucalyptus $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.45 0.58 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus I-215 Towngate $8,843,000 $8,843,000 $66,000 0%0%0.52 0.72 $0 $0 $0 $66,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Towngate Frederick $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.43 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Frederick Heacock $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.51 0.67 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Heacock Kitching $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.53 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Kitching Moreno Beach $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.19 0.28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Eucalyptus Moreno Beach Theodore $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.01 0.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Frederick SR-60 Alessandro $0 $0 $0 Between SR-60 and Sunnymead 5%5%0.42 0.59 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock Cactus San Michele $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.56 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock Reche Vista Cactus $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.47 0.66 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Heacock San Michele Harley Knox $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.11 0.22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Ironwood SR-60 Day $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.82 1.02 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Ironwood Day Heacock $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.69 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Lasselle Alessandro John F Kennedy $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.68 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Lasselle John F Kennedy Oleander $0 $0 $0 Between Via Xavier and Krameria 13%13%0.72 1.01 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach Reche Canyon SR-60 $18,797,000 $18,797,000 $140,000 Between SR-60 and SR-60 WB Exit Ramp 5%5%0.32 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Moreno Beach SR-60 overcrossing bridge $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.95 1.27 87%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Nason SR-60 Alessandro $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.66 0.83 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass Ironwood SR-60 $0 $0 $0 Between SR-60 and SR-60 WB On Ramp, and Hemlock and Ironwood 87%87%0.94 1.07 74%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Ironwood $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.40 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Reche Canyon Moreno Valley City Limit Locust $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.02 0.19 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Redlands Locust Alessandro $39,789,000 $39,789,000 $295,000 Between Locust and Ironwood 27%27%0.80 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $295,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Redlands SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0%0%0.47 0.51 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 Eucalyptus $3,966,000 $3,966,000 $29,000 0%0%0.46 0.99 $0 $0 $0 $29,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Moreno Valley Theodore SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0%0%0.44 0.75 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Ellis Goetz Evans $9,526,000 $9,526,000 $247,000 0%0%0.08 0.14 $0 $0 $0 $247,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Oleander Ramona $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.71 1.10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Ramona Morgan $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.80 1.15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Morgan Rider $0 $0 $0 Between Morgan and Sinclair 50%50%0.83 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Rider Placentia $0 $0 $0 Between Placentia and 350 ft North 11%11%0.55 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Placentia Nuevo $6,492,000 $6,492,000 $169,000 Between Placentia and 220 ft South, and Moraga and Sunset 9%4%0.54 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $169,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Evans Nuevo Ellis $17,705,000 $17,705,000 $460,000 0%0%0.00 0.33 $0 $0 $0 $460,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Evans San Jacinto River bridge $11,136,000 $11,136,000 $384,000 0%0%0.00 0.13 $0 $0 $0 $384,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Evans I-215 bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 $288,000 0%0%0.00 0.13 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Goetz Lesser Ethanac $7,845,000 $7,845,000 $204,000 Between Ethanac and Ruffian 7%7%0.79 1.13 $0 $0 $0 $204,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 Indian $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.31 0.38 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox I-215 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.99 1.62 88%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Indian Perris $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.12 0.15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Harley Knox Perris Redlands $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.25 0.47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Nuevo I-215 Murrieta $16,971,000 $16,971,000 $126,000 0%0%0.51 0.83 $0 $0 $0 $126,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Nuevo I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $19,736,000 $0 0%0%1.53 2.50 60%$12,962,000 $0 $12,962,000 $0 $0 $0 $12,962,000
Central Perris Nuevo Murrieta Dunlap $4,367,000 $4,367,000 $113,000 0%0%0.35 0.68 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris Nuevo Perris Valley Storm Channel bridge $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.35 0.67 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews)I-215 Ethanac $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.69 0.98 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Perris SR-74 (Matthews)I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $21,835,000 $0 0%0%1.41 2.42 67%$10,863,000 $0 $10,863,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,863,000
Central Unincorporated Center (Main)I-215 Mt Vernon $0 $0 $0 Between I-215 and Highgrove 4%4%0.39 0.67 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Center (Main)I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $11,912,000 $0 0%0%2.38 3.22 36%$20,786,000 $0 $20,786,000 $0 $0 $0 $20,786,000
Central Unincorporated Center (Main)BNSF railroad crossing $20,010,000 $20,010,000 $690,000 0%0%0.46 0.82 $0 $0 $0 $690,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Ellis Post SR-74 $11,550,000 $11,550,000 $300,000 0%0%0.20 0.46 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Mount Vernon/CETAP CorridorCenter Pigeon Pass $2,582,000 $2,582,000 $77,000 0%0%0.58 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $77,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Nuevo Dunlap Menifee $8,737,000 $2,505,000 $65,000 Between Dunlap and Menifee 100%100%0.76 1.30 $0 $6,232,000 $0 $227,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Nuevo San Jacinto River bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 $192,000 0%0%0.77 1.36 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor Hidden Springs Mount Vernon $8,106,000 $8,106,000 $241,000 0%0%1.16 1.33 40%$0 $0 $0 $241,000 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Post Santa Rosa Mine Ellis $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.58 1.07 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Reche Canyon Reche Vista Moreno Valley City Limit $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.02 0.19 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Central Unincorporated Redlands San Timoteo Canyon Locust $0 $0 $0 Between Locust and San Timoteo 100%100%1.32 1.51 31%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona 6th SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.43 0.55 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Auto Center Railroad SR-91 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.31 0.32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Cajalco Bedford Canyon I-15 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.51 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Hidden Valley Norco Hills McKinley $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.52 0.72 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Lincoln Parkridge Ontario $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.58 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Magnolia 6th Sherborn $7,054,000 $6,419,000 $47,000 Between 6th and Sherborn 100%100%0.91 1.07 91%$635,000 $0 $635,000 $52,000 $5,000 $5,000 $640,000
Northwest Corona Magnolia Temescal Creek bridge $4,176,000 $3,580,000 $123,000 0%0%0.93 1.08 86%$596,000 $0 $596,000 $144,000 $0 $0 $596,000
Northwest Corona Magnolia Sherborn Rimpau $0 $0 $0 Between Rimpau and I-15 SB On Ramp, and Montecito and Sherborn 60%60%0.93 1.04 77%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Magnolia Rimpau Ontario $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.71 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Grand Ontario $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.78 0.81 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Ontario Foothill $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.40 0.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main Hidden Valley Parkridge $5,314,000 $4,389,000 $32,000 Between Hidden Valley and Parkridge 100%100%0.94 1.12 83%$925,000 $0 $925,000 $39,000 $7,000 $7,000 $932,000
Northwest Corona Main Parkridge SR-91 $0 $0 $0 Between SR-91 WB On Ramp and Grand 8%8%0.62 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Main SR-91 S. Grand $0 $0 $0 Between 3rd and 4th 8%8%0.66 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Hidden Valley Promenade $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.70 0.86 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Promenade SR-91 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.61 0.66 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.76 0.81 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley Arlington Channel bridge $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.81 0.89 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona McKinley BNSF railroad crossing $105,560,000 $0 $0 0%0%0.81 0.89 $0 $105,560,000 $0 $3,640,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario I-15 El Cerrito $13,451,000 $13,451,000 $100,000 Between State and Rising Sun 32%32%0.69 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Lincoln Buena Vista $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.67 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Buena Vista Main $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.47 0.47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Main Kellogg $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.39 0.41 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Kellogg Fullerton $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.36 0.42 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Fullerton Rimpau $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.36 0.49 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Ontario Rimpau I-15 $0 $0 $0 Between Compton and I-15 SB On Ramp 7%7%0.45 0.57 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Railroad Auto Club Buena Vista $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.26 0.30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Railroad BNSF railroad crossing $40,020,000 $40,020,000 $1,380,000 0%0%0.31 0.34 $0 $0 $0 $1,380,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Railroad Buena Vista Main (at Grand)$0 $0 $0 0%0%0.69 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona River Corydon Main $0 $0 $0 Between Corydon and 2nd St 25%25%0.71 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Corona Serfas Club SR-91 Green River $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.58 0.59 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-2 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate - Existing Need and Obligated Funding Updated: July 23, 2024
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHAREMAX TUMF MSHCP SHARE EXIST NEED LOS E&F SEGMENT DESCRIPTION % EXIST NEED >2 LANE ADJST EXIST V/C FUTURE V/C TUMF V/C SHARE EXIST NEED
OBLIGATED UNFUND EXIST NEED MSHCP MSHCP EXIST NEED MSHCP UNFUND EXIST NEED COMBINED UNFUND EXIST NEED
Northwest Eastvale Archibald Remington River $3,382,000 $3,382,000 $0 Between Whispering Hills and Cadenza, and Providence and San Bernardino County 24%24%0.62 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Mission Bellegrave $0 $0 $0 Between Ontario Ranch and Micro, and Riverside and Mission 44%44%0.86 1.30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Bellegrave Amberhill $199,000 $199,000 $0 0%0%0.57 1.16 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Amberhill Limonite $2,787,000 $2,787,000 $72,000 0%0%0.68 1.08 $0 $0 $0 $72,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Limonite Schleisman $991,000 $991,000 $0 0%0%0.38 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Hamner Schleisman Santa Ana River $5,533,000 $3,675,000 $96,000 Between Schleisman and Santa Ana River 100%50%1.24 1.41 33%$1,858,000 $0 $1,858,000 $144,000 $48,000 $48,000 $1,906,000
Northwest Eastvale Hellman Schleisman Walters $419,000 $419,000 $3,000 0%0%0.86 1.69 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Hellman Walters River $21,503,000 $21,503,000 $160,000 0%0%0.69 1.44 $0 $0 $0 $160,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Hellman Cucamonga Creek bridge $3,828,000 $3,828,000 $132,000 0%0%0.69 1.44 $0 $0 $0 $132,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 Eastvale Gateway $289,000 $289,000 $0 Between I-15 and Eastvale Gateway 100%100%0.93 1.32 92%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite I-15 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.67 1.07 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Eastvale Gateway Hamner $255,000 $255,000 $0 Between Eastvale Gateway and Hamner 100%100%0.95 1.36 90%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Hamner Sumner $1,094,000 $1,094,000 $28,000 Between Hamner and Scholar 50%50%0.80 1.16 $0 $0 $0 $28,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Sumner Harrison $497,000 $497,000 $0 0%0%0.77 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Harrison Archibald $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.55 0.70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Archibald Hellman (Keller SBD Co.)$2,208,000 $2,208,000 $57,000 0%0%0.00 0.35 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale Limonite Cucamonga Creek bridge $13,920,000 $0 $0 0%0%0.64 0.75 $0 $13,920,000 $0 $480,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Eastvale River Hellman Archibald $5,948,000 $5,948,000 $44,000 0%0%0.67 1.01 $0 $0 $0 $44,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Armstrong San Bernardino County Valley $6,192,000 $6,192,000 $176,000 Between Sierra and Valley 33%33%0.83 1.14 $0 $0 $0 $176,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Bellegrave Cantu-Galleano Ranch Van Buren $464,000 $464,000 $12,000 0%0%0.43 0.78 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Cantu-Galleano Ranch Wineville Bellegrave $793,000 $793,000 $21,000 0%0%0.14 0.27 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda Philadelphia SR-60 $1,515,000 $989,000 $25,000 Between San Bernardino County and SR-60 100%100%1.11 1.49 65%$526,000 $0 $526,000 $39,000 $14,000 $14,000 $540,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Etiwanda SR-60 Limonite $0 $0 $0 Between SR-60 and Riverside, and Cantu Galleano Ranch and Coral 12%12%0.61 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite I-15 Wineville $0 $0 $0 Between I-15 and I-15 NB On Ramp 15%15%0.82 0.90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Wineville Etiwanda $0 $0 $0 Between Etiwanda and Lorena 9%9%0.76 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Etiwanda Van Buren $2,981,000 $2,981,000 $77,000 Between Bain and Beach 23%23%0.80 0.91 $0 $0 $0 $77,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Van Buren Clay $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.67 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Limonite Clay Riverview $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.64 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Rubidoux Santa Ana River $5,181,000 $0 $0 Between Rubidoux and Aqua Mansa, and Via Cerro and Santa Ana River 40%40%0.86 1.06 $0 $5,181,000 $0 $135,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Market Santa Ana River bridge $13,920,000 $6,204,000 $214,000 0%0%1.13 1.32 45%$7,716,000 $0 $7,716,000 $480,000 $0 $0 $7,716,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission Milliken SR-60 $0 $0 $0 Between Milliken and Wineville, and SR-60 to SR-60 EB Off Ramp 58%58%0.90 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Mission SR-60 Santa Ana River $0 $0 $0 Between Jurupa and Canal, Riverview and Rubidoux, and Crestmore and Santa Ana River 13%13%0.57 0.78 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Riverview Limonite Mission $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.55 0.56 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux Pine Mission $0 $0 $0 Between SR-60 WB and 30th, and 24th and Market 9%9%0.86 1.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Jurupa Valley Rubidoux SR-60 interchange $32,698,000 $9,051,000 $0 0%0%1.61 1.88 28%$23,647,000 $0 $23,647,000 $0 $0 $0 $23,647,000
Northwest Jurupa Valley Valley Armstrong Mission $0 $0 $0 Between Armstrong and Mission 100%100%1.22 1.47 44%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 1st Parkridge Mountain $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.75 0.89 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 1st Mountain Hamner $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.38 0.51 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 2nd River I-15 $0 $0 $0 Between Hamner and I-15 SB On Ramp 7%7%0.74 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 6th Hamner California $0 $0 $0 Between Hamner and I-15 NB On Ramp 9%9%0.68 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco 6th I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $3,489,000 $0 0%0%2.57 2.77 11%$29,209,000 $0 $29,209,000 $0 $0 $0 $29,209,000
Northwest Norco Arlington Crestview Fairhaven $4,342,000 $4,342,000 $113,000 Between Crestview and Fairhaven 100%100%0.79 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco California Arlington 6th $15,237,000 $12,525,000 $93,000 Between Arlington and 7th, and Green Tree ans 6th 78%78%0.96 1.14 77%$2,712,000 $0 $2,712,000 $113,000 $20,000 $20,000 $2,732,000
Northwest Norco Corydon River 5th $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.52 0.78 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River bridge $33,408,000 $11,455,000 $395,000 0%0%1.41 1.67 34%$21,953,000 $21,621,000 $332,000 $1,152,000 $0 $0 $332,000
Northwest Norco Hamner Santa Ana River Hidden Valley $49,591,000 $49,591,000 $368,000 Between Detroit and Santa Ana River 6%6%0.65 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $368,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco Hidden Valley I-15 Norco Hills $0 $0 $0 Between I-15 to I-15 NB On Ramp 3%3%0.55 0.70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco Hidden Valley Hamner I-15 $0 $0 $0 Between Hamner and I-15 100%100%1.14 1.23 27%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco Norco Corydon Hamner $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.33 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco North California Crestview $0 $0 $0 Between California and Crestview 100%100%0.96 1.19 80%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Norco River Archibald Corydon $1,743,000 $1,109,000 $8,000 Between Archibald and Sundance 79%79%1.20 1.56 54%$634,000 $0 $634,000 $13,000 $5,000 $5,000 $639,000
Northwest Riverside 14th Market Martin Luther King $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.66 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside 1st Market Main $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.24 0.50 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside 3rd SR-91 I-215 $1,941,000 $1,941,000 $14,000 0%0%0.49 0.59 $0 $0 $0 $14,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside 3rd BNSF railroad crossing $105,560,000 $30,560,000 $1,054,000 0%0%0.77 0.90 $0 $75,000,000 $0 $3,640,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Adams Arlington SR-91 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.49 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 Lincoln $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.44 0.64 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Adams SR-91 interchange $32,698,000 $3,262,000 $0 0%0%1.46 1.52 10%$29,436,000 $935,000 $28,501,000 $0 $0 $0 $28,501,000
Northwest Riverside Arlington Fairhaven La Sierra $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.68 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Buena Vista Santa Ana River Redwood $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.83 1.17 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Martin Luther King Central $0 $0 $0 Between Martin Luther King and El Cerrito 71%71%1.02 1.16 55%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Central Country Club $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.70 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Country Club Via Vista $4,996,000 $1,593,000 $45,000 Between Country Club and Via Vista 100%100%1.30 1.48 32%$3,403,000 $0 $3,403,000 $142,000 $97,000 $97,000 $3,500,000
Northwest Riverside Canyon Crest Via Vista Alessandro $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.59 0.72 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Chicago I-215/SR-60 $0 $0 $0 Between Chicago and Chapala, and Canyon Crest and Quail Run 32%32%0.80 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0 $0 Between SR-91 and SR-91 SB On Ramp 6%6%0.64 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Alessandro SR-91 $0 $0 $0 Between SR-91 and SR-91 NB On Ramp, and Nottingham and 420 ft West 5%5%0.75 0.87 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Central Van Buren Magnolia $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.43 0.53 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Chicago Alessandro Spruce $0 $0 $0 Between Martin Luther King and Ransom 43%43%0.85 0.99 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Chicago Spruce Columbia $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.72 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Columbia Main Iowa $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.62 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Columbia I-215 interchange $32,698,000 $9,050,000 $0 0%0%2.96 3.74 28%$23,648,000 $0 $23,648,000 $0 $0 $0 $23,648,000
Northwest Riverside Iowa Center 3rd $30,272,000 $30,272,000 $225,000 Between Palmyrita and Columbia 11%11%0.82 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Iowa 3rd University $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.65 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Iowa University Martin Luther King $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.24 0.36 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside JFK Trautwein Wood $1,880,000 $1,880,000 $49,000 0%0%0.54 0.68 $0 $0 $0 $49,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside La Sierra Arlington SR-91 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.43 0.51 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside La Sierra SR-91 Indiana $192,000 $192,000 $0 0%0%0.77 0.85 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside La Sierra Indiana Victoria $778,000 $778,000 $0 0%0%0.71 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lemon (NB One way)Mission Inn University $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.11 0.15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Van Buren Jefferson $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.23 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Jefferson Washington $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.26 0.49 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Lincoln Washington Victoria $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.39 0.56 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Madison SR-91 Victoria $853,000 $853,000 $0 0%0%0.65 0.66 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Madison BNSF railroad crossing $20,010,000 $20,010,000 $690,000 0%0%0.81 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $690,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF Railroad Tyler $0 $0 $0 Between Buchanan and SR-91 EB On Ramp, and SR-91 to La Sierra 53%53%0.82 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia BNSF railroad crossing $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.90 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia Tyler Harrison $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.52 0.66 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Magnolia Harrison 14th $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.62 0.79 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Main 1st San Bernardino County $0 $0 $0 Between Columbia and San Bernardino County, and SR-60 WB On Ramp to SR-60 EB On Ramp 43%43%0.76 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Market 14th Santa Ana River $9,491,000 $9,491,000 $70,000 Between Rivera and Santa Ana River 21%21%0.72 0.92 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Martin Luther King 14th I-215/SR-60 $24,031,000 $24,031,000 $178,000 Between Victoria and Sedgwick, and Iowa and I-215 SB On Ramp 41%41%0.78 0.87 $0 $0 $0 $178,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Mission Inn Redwood Lemon $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.26 0.47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Redwood (SB One way)Mission Inn University $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.59 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Trautwein Alessandro Van Buren $0 $0 $0 Between Mission Grove and Orange Terrace 43%43%0.88 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 Magnolia $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.31 0.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler SR-91 interchange $63,061,000 $21,814,000 $0 0%0%1.56 1.90 35%$41,247,000 $0 $41,247,000 $0 $0 $0 $41,247,000
Northwest Riverside Tyler Magnolia Hole $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.30 0.30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler Hole Wells $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.52 0.53 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Tyler Wells Arlington $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.59 0.62 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside University Redwood SR-91 $859,000 $859,000 $0 0%0%0.60 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside University SR-91 I-215/SR-60 $2,067,000 $2,067,000 $0 Between SR-60 and SR-60 SB On Ramp 2%2%0.52 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Victoria Lincoln Arlington $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.86 1.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Victoria Madison Washington $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.36 0.55 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Washington Victoria Hermosa $27,018,000 $27,018,000 $201,000 Between Dufferin and Overlook, and Bradley and Hermosa 34%34%0.83 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $201,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Wood JFK Van Buren $3,053,000 $3,053,000 $79,000 0%0%0.81 1.03 $0 $0 $0 $79,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Wood Van Buren Bergamont $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.50 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Riverside Wood Bergamont Krameria $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.55 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-2 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate - Existing Need and Obligated Funding Updated: July 23, 2024
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHAREMAX TUMF MSHCP SHARE EXIST NEED LOS E&F SEGMENT DESCRIPTION % EXIST NEED >2 LANE ADJST EXIST V/C FUTURE V/C TUMF V/C SHARE EXIST NEED
OBLIGATED UNFUND EXIST NEED MSHCP MSHCP EXIST NEED MSHCP UNFUND EXIST NEED COMBINED UNFUND EXIST NEED
Northwest Unincorporated Cantu-Galleano Ranch Hamner Wineville $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.47 0.95 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Dos Lagos (Weirick)Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0 $0 Between I-15 and I-15 NB On Ramp 22%22%0.52 0.72 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated El Cerrito I-15 Ontario $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.15 0.26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated El Sobrante Mockingbird Canyon Cajalco $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.62 0.78 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Washington Scottsdale $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.38 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Harley John Scottsdale Cajalco $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.38 0.73 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra Victoria El Sobrante $0 $0 $0 Between Victoria and Orchard View 40%40%0.85 1.03 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated La Sierra El Sobrante Cajalco $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.50 0.83 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Mockingbird Canyon Van Buren El Sobrante $20,871,000 $20,871,000 $593,000 Between Van Buren and Lindina 31%31%0.76 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $593,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon El Cerrito Tuscany $3,168,000 $0 $0 0%0%0.68 1.07 $0 $3,168,000 $0 $90,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Tuscany Dos Lagos $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.72 1.08 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dos Lagos Leroy $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.48 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Leroy Dawson Canyon $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.46 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Dawson Canyon I-15 $0 $0 $0 Between I-15 NB On Ramp and 1000 ft North 43%43%0.66 1.01 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0%0%0.85 1.35 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon I-15 Park Canyon $14,329,000 $14,329,000 $427,000 Between I-15 SB On Ramp and Squaw Mountain 27%27%0.69 1.02 $0 $0 $0 $427,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Park Canyon Indian Truck Trail $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.02 0.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Washington Hermosa Harley John $12,787,000 $12,787,000 $332,000 0%0%0.73 0.92 $0 $0 $0 $332,000 $0 $0 $0
Northwest Unincorporated Wood Krameria Cajalco $12,537,000 $12,537,000 $325,000 Between Krameria and Mariposa 17%17%0.56 0.83 $0 $0 $0 $325,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning 8th Wilson I-10 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.25 0.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Lincoln Sunset SR-243 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.14 0.16 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Ramsey I-10 8th $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.10 0.13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Ramsey 8th Highland Springs $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.24 0.33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning SR-243 I-10 Wesley $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.31 0.46 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Home Sunset $30,502,000 $30,502,000 $226,000 0%0%0.10 0.11 $0 $0 $0 $226,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Smith Creek bridge $8,352,000 $8,352,000 $288,000 0%0%0.10 0.11 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Montgomery Creek bridge $5,568,000 $5,568,000 $192,000 0%0%0.10 0.11 $0 $0 $0 $192,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Sun Lakes Highland Springs Highland Home $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.04 0.05 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Sunset Ramsey Lincoln $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.13 0.23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Sunset I-10 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0%0%0.53 0.91 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Wilson Highland Home 8th $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.06 0.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Banning Wilson Highland Springs Highland Home $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.14 0.24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 1st Viele Pennsylvania $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.48 0.57 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 1st Pennsylvania Highland Springs $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.51 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont 6th I-10 Highland Springs $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.23 0.47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Desert Lawn Champions Oak Valley (STC)$0 $0 $0 0%0%0.45 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)Highland Springs Pennsylvania $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.05 0.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)Pennsylvania Oak View $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.14 0.26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)Oak View I-10 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.69 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (14th)I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $62,401,000 $0 0%0%0.90 1.14 99%$660,000 $0 $660,000 $0 $0 $0 $660,000
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC)UP Railroad Tukwet Canyon $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.01 0.23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Oak Valley (STC)Tukwet Canyon I-10 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.09 0.38 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania 6th 1st $6,588,000 $6,588,000 $49,000 0%0%0.52 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $49,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Beaumont Pennsylvania I-10 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.51 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Bryant County Line Avenue L $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.38 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Calimesa County Line I-10 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.13 0.38 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Calimesa I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000 $0 0%0%0.54 1.59 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa County Line 7th Bryant $0 $0 $0 Between I-10 WB On Ramp and Calimesa, and Park and 5th 13%13%0.54 0.71 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa County Line I-10 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0%0%0.88 1.26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Desert Lawn Palmer Champions $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.04 0.44 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Singleton Avenue L Condit $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.43 0.64 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Singleton Condit Roberts $12,972,000 $12,972,000 $96,000 0%0%0.74 1.14 $0 $0 $0 $96,000 $0 $0 $0
Pass Calimesa Singleton I-10 interchange $63,061,000 $0 $0 0%0%1.04 0.99 0%$63,061,000 $0 $63,061,000 $0 $0 $0 $63,061,000
Pass Calimesa Tukwet Canyon Roberts Rd Palmer $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.71 1.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated Live Oak Canyon Oak Valley (STC)San Bernardino County $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.36 0.47 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon San Bernardino County UP Railroad $0 $0 $0 Between San Bernardino County and Redlands 22%22%0.31 0.66 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pass Unincorporated San Timoteo Canyon UP Railroad railroad crossing $52,780,000 $52,780,000 $1,820,000 0%0%0.08 0.48 $0 $0 $0 $1,820,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Acacia Menlo $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.74 0.92 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Domenigoni Stetson $0 $0 $0 Between Stetson and Thornton 26%26%0.79 1.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson RR Crossing Acacia $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.82 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Stetson RR Crossing $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.77 1.11 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Sanderson Menlo Esplanade $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.72 0.95 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida)Warren Cawston $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.62 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74 (Florida)Columbia Ramona $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.47 0.57 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet SR-74/SR-79 (Florida)Cawston Columbia $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.38 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Domenigoni Chambers $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.44 0.92 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Chambers Stetson $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.51 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Florida Esplanade $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.33 0.53 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet State Stetson Florida $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.57 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Cawston State $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.49 0.68 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Stetson Warren Cawston $4,357,000 $4,357,000 $113,000 0%0%0.59 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $113,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Warren Esplanade Domenigoni $19,926,000 $19,926,000 $517,000 Between Devonshire and Stetson 31%31%0.79 1.10 $0 $0 $0 $517,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Hemet Warren Salt Creek bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 $144,000 0%0%0.64 1.05 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade Mountain State $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.33 0.39 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Esplanade State Warren $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.37 0.55 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Sanderson Ramona Esplanade $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.53 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (North Ramona)State San Jacinto $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.55 0.70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto)North Ramona Blvd 7th $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.70 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto SR-79 (San Jacinto)7th SR-74 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.32 0.46 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto State Ramona Esplanade $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.60 0.78 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto State Gilman Springs Quandt Ranch $3,317,000 $3,317,000 $86,000 0%0%0.82 1.01 $0 $0 $0 $86,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto State San Jacinto River bridge $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.86 1.03 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto State Quandt Ranch Ramona $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.39 0.46 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto San Jacinto Warren Ramona Esplanade $13,469,000 $13,469,000 $350,000 0%0%0.67 0.89 $0 $0 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Sanderson State $11,097,000 $11,097,000 $288,000 0%0%0.83 1.07 $0 $0 $0 $288,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Springs Massacre Canyon Wash bridge $1,392,000 $1,392,000 $48,000 0%0%0.85 1.11 $0 $0 $0 $48,000 $0 $0 $0
San Jacinto Unincorporated SR-79 (Winchester)SR-74 (Florida)Domenigoni $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.66 1.05 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-2 TUMF Network Detailed Cost Estimate - Existing Need and Obligated Funding Updated: July 23, 2024
AREA PLAN DIST CITY STREETNAME SEGMENTFROM SEGMENTTO TOTAL COST MAXIMUM TUMF SHAREMAX TUMF MSHCP SHARE EXIST NEED LOS E&F SEGMENT DESCRIPTION % EXIST NEED >2 LANE ADJST EXIST V/C FUTURE V/C TUMF V/C SHARE EXIST NEED
OBLIGATED UNFUND EXIST NEED MSHCP MSHCP EXIST NEED MSHCP UNFUND EXIST NEED COMBINED UNFUND EXIST NEED
Southwest Lake Elsinore Corydon Mission Grand $3,336,000 $3,336,000 $87,000 0%0%0.73 1.02 $0 $0 $0 $87,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Diamond Mission I-15 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.73 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Franklin (integral to Railroad Canyon Interchange) I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $32,698,000 $0 0%0%0.66 1.25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Lincoln Toft $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.47 0.65 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Grand Toft SR-74 (Riverside)$3,512,000 $3,512,000 $91,000 0%0%0.68 0.92 $0 $0 $0 $91,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 Lincoln $39,817,000 $32,726,000 $335,000 Between Orange Grove and the I-15 SB On Ramp 76%76%0.99 1.28 77%$7,091,000 $0 $7,091,000 $407,000 $73,000 $73,000 $7,164,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $15,771,000 $0 0%0%1.08 1.25 48%$16,927,000 $0 $16,927,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,927,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Lake Temescal Wash bridge $2,506,000 $1,150,000 $39,000 0%0%1.12 1.31 46%$1,356,000 $0 $1,356,000 $86,000 $0 $0 $1,356,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore Mission Railroad Canyon Bundy Canyon $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.48 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 Lake $7,850,000 $7,850,000 $204,000 0%0%0.59 0.96 $0 $0 $0 $204,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols Temescal Wash bridge $4,176,000 $4,176,000 $144,000 0%0%0.63 1.12 $0 $0 $0 $144,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Nichols I-15 interchange $63,061,000 $63,061,000 $0 0%0%0.63 1.12 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Collier/Riverside)I-15 Lakeshore $24,303,000 $24,303,000 $180,000 Between Strickland and Collier 31%31%0.86 1.05 $0 $0 $0 $180,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Grand)Riverside SR-74 (Ortega)$9,733,000 $3,691,000 $27,000 Between Riverside and Ortega 100%100%1.19 1.37 38%$6,042,000 $0 $6,042,000 $72,000 $45,000 $45,000 $6,087,000
Southwest Lake Elsinore SR-74 (Riverside)Lakeshore Grand $20,175,000 $20,175,000 $150,000 Between Lakeshore and Raven 31%31%0.78 0.91 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon I-15 Lake $7,411,000 $7,411,000 $211,000 0%0%0.64 1.17 $0 $0 $0 $211,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Lake Elsinore Temescal Canyon Temescal Wash bridge $3,480,000 $3,480,000 $120,000 0%0%0.85 1.28 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jefferson I-15 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.47 0.61 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta California Oaks I-15 Jackson $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.76 0.89 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta California Oaks Jackson Clinton Keith $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.65 0.77 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Jackson Whitewood Ynez $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.32 0.62 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Palomar Nutmeg $1,562,000 $1,562,000 $44,000 0%0%0.07 0.10 $0 $0 $0 $44,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Nutmeg Murrieta Hot Springs $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.46 0.63 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Jefferson Murrieta Hot Springs Cherry $30,634,000 $30,634,000 $227,000 0%0%0.47 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $227,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 Whitewood $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.20 0.45 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Keller I-215 interchange $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.09 0.06 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Los Alamos Jefferson I-215 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.24 0.38 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Jefferson I-215 $0 $0 $0 Between Hancock and I-215 17%17%0.62 0.90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs I-215 Margarita $0 $0 $0 Between I-215 and I-215 NB On Ramp, and Alta Murrieta and St. Maria 11%11%0.82 1.08 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs Margarita SR-79 (Winchester)$4,057,000 $3,899,000 $101,000 Between Margarita and Calle del Lago 57%57%0.93 1.33 93%$158,000 $0 $158,000 $105,000 $4,000 $4,000 $162,000
Southwest Murrieta Nutmeg Jefferson Clinton Keith $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.45 0.69 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Clinton Keith Los Alamos $2,708,000 $2,708,000 $77,000 0%0%0.45 0.76 $0 $0 $0 $77,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Los Alamos Murrieta Hot Springs $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.45 0.75 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Whitewood Murrieta Hot Springs Jackson $4,629,000 $4,629,000 $47,000 0%0%0.15 0.16 $0 $0 $0 $47,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Murrieta Ynez Jackson SR-79 (Winchester)$0 $0 $0 0%0%0.62 1.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Murrieta Hot Springs Calle Chapos $816,000 $816,000 $0 0%0%0.61 1.15 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Calle Chapos La Serena $696,000 $696,000 $0 0%0%0.58 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage La Serena Rancho California $904,000 $904,000 $0 Between La Serena and Rancho California 100%100%0.95 1.21 85%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Rancho California Pauba $846,000 $846,000 $0 Between Rancho California and Creek 5%5%0.55 0.88 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Butterfield Stage Pauba SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)$725,000 $725,000 $21,000 0%0%0.49 0.84 $0 $0 $0 $21,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Jefferson Cherry Rancho California $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $0 0%0%0.34 0.92 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Margarita Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)$7,644,000 $7,644,000 $0 Between Winchester and Campos Verdes, and Solana and 250 ft North of Ramsey 5%5%0.65 1.04 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Old Town Front Rancho California I-15/SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)$0 $0 $0 0%0%0.68 1.37 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)Via Gilberto $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.72 1.02 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Pechanga Pkwy Via Gilberto Pechanga Pkwy $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.42 0.52 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Rancho California Jefferson Margarita $18,254,000 $18,181,000 $101,000 Between I-15 SB On Ramp and I-15, and Moraga and Cosmic 40%40%0.90 1.37 99%$73,000 $0 $73,000 $101,000 $0 $0 $73,000
Southwest Temecula Rancho California I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $0 $0 0%0%1.55 2.67 63%$12,098,000 $32,698,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula Rancho California Margarita Butterfield Stage $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.63 0.74 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)I-15 Pechanga Pkwy $0 $0 $0 Between I-15 and Pechanga 100%100%1.08 1.42 65%$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Temecula SR-79 (Temecula Pkwy)Pechanga Pkwy Butterfield Stage $3,065,000 $3,065,000 $0 0%0%0.65 0.88 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Briggs Scott SR-79 (Winchester)$6,509,000 $6,509,000 $169,000 0%0%0.41 0.70 $0 $0 $0 $169,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage Tucalota Creek bridge $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.41 0.70 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Butterfield Stage (Pourroy)Auld Murrieta Hot Springs $23,076,000 $23,076,000 $656,000 Between Auld and Honey Pine 23%12%0.88 0.99 $0 $0 $0 $656,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Grand Ortega Corydon $68,025,000 $68,025,000 $505,000 Between Zinck and Stoneman, and Ontario and Corydon 16%16%0.80 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $505,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Horsethief Canyon Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.81 0.64 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Indian Truck Trail Temescal Canyon I-15 $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.15 0.21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Murrieta Hot Springs SR-79 (Winchester)Pourroy $0 $0 $0 Between Winchester and Vons 4%4%0.46 0.86 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Pala Pechanga San Diego County $0 $0 $0 Between Pechango and Rainbow Oaks 48%48%0.88 1.48 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Pourroy SR-79 (Winchester)Auld $2,236,000 $2,236,000 $64,000 0%0%0.42 0.57 $0 $0 $0 $64,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Rancho California Butterfield Stage Glen Oaks $87,369,000 $87,369,000 $482,000 0%0%0.65 0.93 $0 $0 $0 $482,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Horsethief Canyon Wash bridge $3,340,000 $3,340,000 $115,000 0%0%0.66 0.86 $0 $0 $0 $115,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Truck Trail I-15 $15,739,000 $15,739,000 $447,000 0%0%0.64 0.97 $0 $0 $0 $447,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Unincorporated Temescal Canyon Indian Wash bridge $1,462,000 $1,462,000 $50,000 0%0%0.61 0.80 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Bundy Canyon Mission I-15 $9,704,000 $9,704,000 $72,000 0%0%0.60 0.90 $0 $0 $0 $72,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Grand Corydon Wildomar Trail $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.72 0.89 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Mission Bundy Canyon Palomar $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.20 0.43 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Palomar Clinton Keith Washington $3,227,000 $3,227,000 $84,000 0%0%0.59 0.88 $0 $0 $0 $84,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Palomar Mission Clinton Keith $13,493,000 $13,493,000 $383,000 0%0%0.60 0.88 $0 $0 $0 $383,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 Baxter $1,281,000 $1,281,000 $33,000 Between I-15 SB On Ramp to Baxter 73%73%0.87 1.06 $0 $0 $0 $33,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail I-15 interchange $32,698,000 $27,858,000 $0 0%0%0.94 1.15 85%$4,840,000 $0 $4,840,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,840,000
Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Baxter Palomar $11,316,000 $11,316,000 $84,000 Between Baxter and Cervera 35%35%0.82 0.94 $0 $0 $0 $84,000 $0 $0 $0
Southwest Wildomar Wildomar Trail Palomar Grand $0 $0 $0 0%0%0.87 1.03 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $2,508,329,000 $1,913,028,000 $23,597,000 13.2%$365,640,000 $264,315,000 $330,986,000 $32,098,000 $318,000 $318,000 $331,304,000
Totals Network 4,840,250,000$ 3,874,735,000$ 53,859,000$ 12.0%Network Unfunded Existing Need Adjustment 652,275,000$ 382,886,000$ 582,629,000$ 64,606,000$ 1,410,000$ 1,263,000$ 583,892,000$
Transit 217,870,000$ 154,831,000$ 28.9%Transit Existing Need Adjustment 63,039,000$
Administration 161,183,000$ 161,183,000$
MSHCP 64,606,000$ 53,859,000$ 1,263,000$
TOTAL 5,283,909,000$ 4,244,608,000$ 12.2%Total Unfunded Existing Need Adjustment 646,931,000$
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT H-3 Regional Transit Existing Need ShareSummary of Transit Trip ChangeYearWestern Riverside Daily Transit Trips 2023* 16,575 2045** 57,282 Growth 2023 - 2045 40,707 Existing Need Share: 28.9%Future Growth Share: 71.1%Notes:Maximum TUMF Transit Component ValueRTA Transit Full Mitigation Cost Existing Need CostMAX TUMF TRANSIT VALUE$217,870,000 $63,039,000$154,831,000$4,297,490,4403.6%Total MAX TUMF VALUETransit Share of MAX TUMF VALUE* - 2023 actual average weekday daily ridership provided by RTA staff December 1, 2023** - 2045 forecast average weekday daily ridership obtained from SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Model as provided by Fehr and Peers November Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
I-1
Appendix I - Western Riverside County Regional Trip Distribution
In order to ensure an equitable regional/zonal distribution of potential TUMF revenues,
the distribution of trips in the WRCOG region was analyzed to determine the distribution
between local (intra-zonal) and regional (inter-zonal) trips. This analysis was completed
using the Year 2040 No-Build scenario Origin-Destination (O-D) vehicle trip tables from
RivCoM. The analysis of vehicle trips based on the respective trip ends as stratified by
zone is considered sufficient to establish the rough proportionality between local (intra-
zonal) and regional (inter-zonal) trips because this measure is intended to only serve as
a guide in the distribution of potential TUMF revenues between regional and local
projects, and is not intended to serve as the basis for quantifying the relative magnitude
of the impacts of different types of new development on the TUMF network (as
described in Appendix J)
The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the traffic
analysis zones (TAZ’s) in the RivCoM model and the five WRCOG TUMF zones: Northwest,
Central, Pass Area, Hemet/San Jacinto, and Southwest. A table detailing the TAZ
correspondence for each WRCOG TUMF zone is included as Exhibit I-1 in this Appendix.
The vehicle trip tables by TAZ were aggregated to obtain the trip summary between six
districts (five WRCOG TUMF Zones and one for the rest of Southern California region
included in the model analysis area)
Table 5.1 and 5.2 of the Nexus Study produce a matrix of total combined AM and PM
peak period vehicle trips between the six districts. This information is subsequently
weighted by TUMF future network lane miles in Table 5.3 to determine the relative share
of trips that can be allocated between the backbone network and secondary
network. Exhibits I-2 through I-9 provide the corresponding peak period vehicle trip
matrices for each of the four time periods analyzed by the RivCoM model (AM peak,
midday, PM peak and overnight) as well as total daily trips between the six districts.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT I-1
RivCoM TAZ Correspondence by WRCOG TUMF Zone - Hemet/San Jacinto
TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City
1008 Riverside Central Lake Elsinore 1197 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1857 Riverside Central Perris
1044 Riverside Central Menifee 1198 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1858 Riverside Central Perris
1045 Riverside Central Menifee 1199 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1859 Riverside Central Perris
1046 Riverside Central Menifee 1200 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1860 Riverside Central Perris
1047 Riverside Central Menifee 1201 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1861 Riverside Central Perris
1048 Riverside Central Menifee 1202 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1862 Riverside Central Perris
1049 Riverside Central Menifee 1203 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1863 Riverside Central Perris
1050 Riverside Central Menifee 1204 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1864 Riverside Central Perris
1051 Riverside Central Menifee 1205 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1865 Riverside Central Perris
1052 Riverside Central Menifee 1206 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1866 Riverside Central Perris
1053 Riverside Central Menifee 1207 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1867 Riverside Central Perris
1054 Riverside Central Menifee 1208 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1868 Riverside Central Perris
1055 Riverside Central Menifee 1209 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1869 Riverside Central Perris
1056 Riverside Central Menifee 1210 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1870 Riverside Central Perris
1057 Riverside Central Menifee 1211 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1871 Riverside Central Perris
1058 Riverside Central Menifee 1212 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1872 Riverside Central Perris
1059 Riverside Central Menifee 1213 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1873 Riverside Central Perris
1060 Riverside Central Menifee 1214 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1874 Riverside Central Perris
1061 Riverside Central Menifee 1215 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1875 Riverside Central Perris
1062 Riverside Central Menifee 1216 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1876 Riverside Central Perris
1063 Riverside Central Menifee 1217 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1877 Riverside Central Perris
1064 Riverside Central Menifee 1218 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1878 Riverside Central Perris
1065 Riverside Central Menifee 1219 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1879 Riverside Central Perris
1066 Riverside Central Menifee 1220 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2126 Riverside Central Riverside
1067 Riverside Central Menifee 1221 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2127 Riverside Central Riverside
1068 Riverside Central Menifee 1222 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2128 Riverside Central Riverside
1069 Riverside Central Menifee 1223 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2320 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1070 Riverside Central Menifee 1224 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2327 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1071 Riverside Central Menifee 1225 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2328 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1072 Riverside Central Menifee 1226 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2329 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1073 Riverside Central Menifee 1227 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2330 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1074 Riverside Central Menifee 1228 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2331 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1075 Riverside Central Menifee 1229 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2332 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1076 Riverside Central Menifee 1230 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2333 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1077 Riverside Central Menifee 1231 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2334 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1078 Riverside Central Menifee 1232 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2335 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1079 Riverside Central Menifee 1233 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2336 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1080 Riverside Central Menifee 1234 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2337 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1081 Riverside Central Menifee 1235 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2339 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1082 Riverside Central Menifee 1236 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2341 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1083 Riverside Central Menifee 1237 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2343 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1084 Riverside Central Menifee 1238 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2344 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1085 Riverside Central Menifee 1239 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2345 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1086 Riverside Central Menifee 1240 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2350 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1087 Riverside Central Menifee 1241 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2351 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1088 Riverside Central Menifee 1242 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2352 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1089 Riverside Central Menifee 1243 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2353 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1090 Riverside Central Menifee 1244 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2354 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1091 Riverside Central Menifee 1245 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2359 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1092 Riverside Central Menifee 1246 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2668 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1093 Riverside Central Menifee 1247 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2669 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1094 Riverside Central Menifee 1248 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2673 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1095 Riverside Central Menifee 1249 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2675 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1096 Riverside Central Menifee 1250 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2676 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1097 Riverside Central Menifee 1251 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2677 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1098 Riverside Central Menifee 1252 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2678 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1099 Riverside Central Menifee 1253 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2682 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1100 Riverside Central Menifee 1254 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2683 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1101 Riverside Central Menifee 1255 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2684 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1102 Riverside Central Menifee 1256 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2685 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1103 Riverside Central Menifee 1257 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2686 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1104 Riverside Central Menifee 1258 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2687 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1105 Riverside Central Menifee 1259 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2688 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1106 Riverside Central Menifee 1260 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2689 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1107 Riverside Central Menifee 1261 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2690 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1108 Riverside Central Menifee 1262 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2691 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1109 Riverside Central Menifee 1263 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2692 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1110 Riverside Central Menifee 1264 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2693 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1111 Riverside Central Menifee 1265 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2694 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1112 Riverside Central Menifee 1266 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2709 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1113 Riverside Central Menifee 1267 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2710 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1114 Riverside Central Menifee 1268 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2711 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1115 Riverside Central Menifee 1269 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2712 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1116 Riverside Central Menifee 1270 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2713 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1117 Riverside Central Menifee 1271 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2714 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1118 Riverside Central Menifee 1272 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2715 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1119 Riverside Central Menifee 1273 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2716 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1120 Riverside Central Menifee 1274 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2717 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1121 Riverside Central Menifee 1275 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2719 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1122 Riverside Central Menifee 1276 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2721 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1123 Riverside Central Menifee 1277 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2722 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1124 Riverside Central Menifee 1279 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2723 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1125 Riverside Central Menifee 1280 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2724 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1126 Riverside Central Menifee 1281 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2725 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1127 Riverside Central Menifee 1282 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2727 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1128 Riverside Central Menifee 1283 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2728 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1129 Riverside Central Menifee 1284 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2729 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1130 Riverside Central Menifee 1285 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 2733 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1131 Riverside Central Menifee 1793 Riverside Central Perris 2744 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1132 Riverside Central Menifee 1794 Riverside Central Perris 2745 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1133 Riverside Central Menifee 1795 Riverside Central Perris 2746 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1134 Riverside Central Menifee 1796 Riverside Central Perris 2747 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1135 Riverside Central Menifee 1797 Riverside Central Perris 2748 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1136 Riverside Central Menifee 1798 Riverside Central Perris 2752 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1137 Riverside Central Menifee 1799 Riverside Central Perris 2753 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1138 Riverside Central Menifee 1800 Riverside Central Perris 2754 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1139 Riverside Central Menifee 1801 Riverside Central Perris 2755 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1140 Riverside Central Menifee 1802 Riverside Central Perris 2756 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1141 Riverside Central Menifee 1803 Riverside Central Perris 2757 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1142 Riverside Central Menifee 1804 Riverside Central Perris 2758 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1143 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1805 Riverside Central Perris 2759 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1144 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1806 Riverside Central Perris 2760 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1145 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1807 Riverside Central Perris 2761 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1146 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1808 Riverside Central Perris 2762 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1147 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1809 Riverside Central Perris 2780 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1148 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1810 Riverside Central Perris 2781 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1149 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1811 Riverside Central Perris 2782 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1150 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1812 Riverside Central Perris 2783 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1151 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1813 Riverside Central Perris 2784 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1152 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1814 Riverside Central Perris 2785 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1153 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1815 Riverside Central Perris 2786 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1154 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1816 Riverside Central Perris 2787 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1155 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1817 Riverside Central Perris 2788 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1156 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1818 Riverside Central Perris 2789 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1157 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1819 Riverside Central Perris 2793 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1158 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1820 Riverside Central Perris 2794 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1159 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1821 Riverside Central Perris 2795 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1160 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1822 Riverside Central Perris 2796 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1161 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1823 Riverside Central Perris 2797 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1162 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1824 Riverside Central Perris 2802 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1163 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1825 Riverside Central Perris 2804 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1164 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1826 Riverside Central Perris 2807 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1165 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1827 Riverside Central Perris 2809 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1166 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1828 Riverside Central Perris 2825 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1167 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1829 Riverside Central Perris 2853 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1168 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1830 Riverside Central Perris 2857 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1169 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1831 Riverside Central Perris 2862 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1170 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1832 Riverside Central Perris 2863 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1171 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1833 Riverside Central Perris 2864 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1172 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1834 Riverside Central Perris 2869 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1173 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1835 Riverside Central Perris 2870 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1174 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1836 Riverside Central Perris 2872 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1175 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1837 Riverside Central Perris 2875 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1176 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1838 Riverside Central Perris 2877 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1177 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1839 Riverside Central Perris 2878 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1178 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1840 Riverside Central Perris 2879 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1179 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1841 Riverside Central Perris 2880 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1180 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1842 Riverside Central Perris 2905 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1181 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1843 Riverside Central Perris 2906 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1182 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1844 Riverside Central Perris 2907 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1183 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1845 Riverside Central Perris 3177 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1184 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1846 Riverside Central Perris 3183 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1185 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1847 Riverside Central Perris 3225 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1186 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1848 Riverside Central Perris 3227 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1187 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1849 Riverside Central Perris 3228 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1188 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1850 Riverside Central Perris 3229 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1189 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1851 Riverside Central Perris 3230 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1190 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1852 Riverside Central Perris 3231 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1191 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1853 Riverside Central Perris 3232 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1192 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1854 Riverside Central Perris 3233 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1193 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1855 Riverside Central Perris 3235 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1194 Riverside Central Moreno Valley 1856 Riverside Central Perris 3236 Riverside Central Unincorporated
1195 Riverside Central Moreno Valley
1196 Riverside Central Moreno Valley
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT I-1 (continued)
RivCoM TAZ Correspondence by WRCOG TUMF Zone - Hemet/San Jacinto
TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City
642 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2135 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2625 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
643 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2136 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2626 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
644 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2137 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2628 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
645 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2138 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2630 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
646 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2139 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2631 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
647 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2140 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2632 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
648 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2141 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2633 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
649 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2142 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2634 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
650 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2143 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2635 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
651 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2144 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2641 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
652 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2145 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2642 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
653 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2146 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2643 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
654 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2147 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2644 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
655 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2148 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2645 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
656 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2149 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2646 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
657 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2150 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2647 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
658 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2151 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2648 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
659 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2152 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2649 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
660 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2153 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2651 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
661 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2154 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2652 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
662 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2155 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2653 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
663 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2156 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2654 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
664 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2157 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2655 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
665 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2158 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2660 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
666 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2159 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2670 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
667 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2160 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2679 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
668 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2161 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2810 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
669 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2162 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2811 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
670 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2163 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2812 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
671 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2164 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2815 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
672 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2165 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2816 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
673 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2166 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2817 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
674 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2167 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2818 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
675 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2168 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2819 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
676 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2169 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2820 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
677 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2170 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2821 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
678 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2171 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2822 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
679 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2172 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2823 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
680 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2173 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2824 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
681 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2174 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2826 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
682 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2175 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2827 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
683 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2176 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2828 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
684 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2177 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2829 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
685 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2178 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2830 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
686 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2179 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2831 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
687 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2180 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2832 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
688 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2181 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2833 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
689 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2182 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2834 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
690 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2183 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2835 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
691 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2184 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2836 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
692 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2185 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2839 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
693 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2186 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2840 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
694 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2187 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2841 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
695 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2188 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2842 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
696 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2189 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2843 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
697 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2190 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2844 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
698 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2191 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2845 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
699 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2192 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2848 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
700 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2193 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2850 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
701 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2194 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2851 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
702 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2195 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2856 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
703 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2196 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2865 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
704 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2197 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2866 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
705 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2198 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2867 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
706 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2199 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2868 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
707 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2200 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2871 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
708 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2201 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2873 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
709 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2202 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2874 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
710 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2203 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2876 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
711 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2204 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2881 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
712 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2205 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2882 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
713 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2206 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2883 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
714 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2207 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto San Jacinto 2884 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
715 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2324 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2885 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
716 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2325 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2886 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
717 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2326 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2887 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
718 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2338 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2888 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
719 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2340 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2889 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
720 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2342 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2890 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
721 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2346 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2891 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
722 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2347 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2892 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
723 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2348 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2893 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
724 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2349 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2894 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
725 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2358 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2895 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
726 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2360 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2919 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
727 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2361 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2920 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
728 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2362 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2921 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
729 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2471 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2922 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
730 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2472 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2934 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
731 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2491 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2935 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
732 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2493 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2936 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
733 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2494 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2937 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
734 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2625 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 2938 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
735 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2626 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 3194 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
736 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2628 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 3195 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
737 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2630 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 3196 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
738 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Hemet 2631 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated 3197 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
3198 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
3242 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
3243 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
3244 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
3245 Riverside Hemet/San Jacinto Unincorporated
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT I-1 (continued)
RivCoM TAZ Correspondence by WRCOG TUMF Zone - Northwest
TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City
332 Riverside Northwest Corona 520 Riverside Northwest Corona 1910 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2090 Riverside Northwest Riverside
333 Riverside Northwest Corona 521 Riverside Northwest Corona 1911 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2091 Riverside Northwest Riverside
334 Riverside Northwest Corona 522 Riverside Northwest Corona 1912 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2092 Riverside Northwest Riverside
335 Riverside Northwest Corona 523 Riverside Northwest Corona 1913 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2093 Riverside Northwest Riverside
336 Riverside Northwest Corona 524 Riverside Northwest Corona 1914 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2094 Riverside Northwest Riverside
337 Riverside Northwest Corona 525 Riverside Northwest Corona 1915 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2095 Riverside Northwest Riverside
338 Riverside Northwest Corona 526 Riverside Northwest Corona 1916 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2096 Riverside Northwest Riverside
339 Riverside Northwest Corona 527 Riverside Northwest Corona 1917 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2097 Riverside Northwest Riverside
340 Riverside Northwest Corona 528 Riverside Northwest Corona 1918 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2098 Riverside Northwest Riverside
341 Riverside Northwest Corona 529 Riverside Northwest Corona 1919 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2099 Riverside Northwest Riverside
342 Riverside Northwest Corona 530 Riverside Northwest Corona 1920 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2100 Riverside Northwest Riverside
343 Riverside Northwest Corona 531 Riverside Northwest Corona 1921 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2101 Riverside Northwest Riverside
344 Riverside Northwest Corona 532 Riverside Northwest Corona 1922 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2102 Riverside Northwest Riverside
345 Riverside Northwest Corona 533 Riverside Northwest Corona 1923 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2103 Riverside Northwest Riverside
346 Riverside Northwest Corona 534 Riverside Northwest Corona 1924 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2104 Riverside Northwest Riverside
347 Riverside Northwest Corona 535 Riverside Northwest Corona 1925 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2105 Riverside Northwest Riverside
348 Riverside Northwest Corona 536 Riverside Northwest Corona 1926 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2106 Riverside Northwest Riverside
349 Riverside Northwest Corona 537 Riverside Northwest Corona 1927 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2107 Riverside Northwest Riverside
350 Riverside Northwest Corona 538 Riverside Northwest Corona 1928 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2108 Riverside Northwest Riverside
351 Riverside Northwest Corona 539 Riverside Northwest Corona 1929 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2109 Riverside Northwest Riverside
352 Riverside Northwest Corona 540 Riverside Northwest Corona 1930 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2110 Riverside Northwest Riverside
353 Riverside Northwest Corona 541 Riverside Northwest Corona 1931 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2111 Riverside Northwest Riverside
354 Riverside Northwest Corona 542 Riverside Northwest Corona 1932 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2112 Riverside Northwest Riverside
355 Riverside Northwest Corona 543 Riverside Northwest Corona 1933 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2113 Riverside Northwest Riverside
356 Riverside Northwest Corona 544 Riverside Northwest Corona 1934 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2114 Riverside Northwest Riverside
357 Riverside Northwest Corona 545 Riverside Northwest Corona 1935 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2115 Riverside Northwest Riverside
358 Riverside Northwest Corona 546 Riverside Northwest Corona 1936 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2116 Riverside Northwest Riverside
359 Riverside Northwest Corona 547 Riverside Northwest Corona 1937 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2117 Riverside Northwest Riverside
360 Riverside Northwest Corona 548 Riverside Northwest Corona 1938 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2118 Riverside Northwest Riverside
361 Riverside Northwest Corona 549 Riverside Northwest Corona 1939 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2119 Riverside Northwest Riverside
362 Riverside Northwest Corona 550 Riverside Northwest Corona 1940 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2120 Riverside Northwest Riverside
363 Riverside Northwest Corona 551 Riverside Northwest Corona 1941 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2121 Riverside Northwest Riverside
364 Riverside Northwest Corona 552 Riverside Northwest Corona 1942 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2122 Riverside Northwest Riverside
365 Riverside Northwest Corona 553 Riverside Northwest Corona 1943 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2123 Riverside Northwest Riverside
366 Riverside Northwest Corona 554 Riverside Northwest Corona 1944 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2124 Riverside Northwest Riverside
367 Riverside Northwest Corona 555 Riverside Northwest Corona 1945 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2125 Riverside Northwest Riverside
368 Riverside Northwest Corona 556 Riverside Northwest Corona 1946 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2129 Riverside Northwest Riverside
369 Riverside Northwest Corona 557 Riverside Northwest Corona 1947 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2130 Riverside Northwest Riverside
370 Riverside Northwest Corona 558 Riverside Northwest Corona 1948 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2131 Riverside Northwest Riverside
371 Riverside Northwest Corona 559 Riverside Northwest Corona 1949 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2132 Riverside Northwest Riverside
372 Riverside Northwest Corona 560 Riverside Northwest Corona 1950 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2133 Riverside Northwest Riverside
373 Riverside Northwest Corona 561 Riverside Northwest Corona 1951 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2134 Riverside Northwest Riverside
374 Riverside Northwest Corona 562 Riverside Northwest Corona 1952 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2321 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
375 Riverside Northwest Corona 563 Riverside Northwest Corona 1953 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2322 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
376 Riverside Northwest Corona 564 Riverside Northwest Corona 1954 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2370 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
377 Riverside Northwest Corona 565 Riverside Northwest Corona 1955 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2371 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
378 Riverside Northwest Corona 566 Riverside Northwest Corona 1956 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2372 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
379 Riverside Northwest Corona 567 Riverside Northwest Corona 1957 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2373 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
380 Riverside Northwest Corona 568 Riverside Northwest Corona 1958 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2374 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
381 Riverside Northwest Corona 569 Riverside Northwest Corona 1959 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2375 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
382 Riverside Northwest Corona 603 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1960 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2376 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
383 Riverside Northwest Corona 604 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1961 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2377 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
384 Riverside Northwest Corona 605 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1962 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2378 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
385 Riverside Northwest Corona 606 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1963 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2379 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
386 Riverside Northwest Corona 607 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1964 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2380 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
387 Riverside Northwest Corona 608 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1965 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2381 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
388 Riverside Northwest Corona 609 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1966 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2382 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
389 Riverside Northwest Corona 610 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1967 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2383 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
390 Riverside Northwest Corona 611 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1968 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2384 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
391 Riverside Northwest Corona 612 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1969 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2385 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
392 Riverside Northwest Corona 613 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1970 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2386 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
393 Riverside Northwest Corona 614 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1971 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2387 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
394 Riverside Northwest Corona 615 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1972 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2388 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
395 Riverside Northwest Corona 616 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1973 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2389 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
396 Riverside Northwest Corona 617 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1974 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2390 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
397 Riverside Northwest Corona 618 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1975 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2391 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
398 Riverside Northwest Corona 619 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1976 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2392 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
399 Riverside Northwest Corona 620 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1977 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2393 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
400 Riverside Northwest Corona 621 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1978 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2394 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
401 Riverside Northwest Corona 622 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1979 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2397 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
402 Riverside Northwest Corona 623 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1980 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2398 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
403 Riverside Northwest Corona 624 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1981 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2399 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
404 Riverside Northwest Corona 625 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1982 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2400 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
405 Riverside Northwest Corona 626 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1983 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2401 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
406 Riverside Northwest Corona 627 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1984 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2402 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
407 Riverside Northwest Corona 628 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1985 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2403 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
408 Riverside Northwest Corona 629 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1986 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2404 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
409 Riverside Northwest Corona 630 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1987 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2405 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
410 Riverside Northwest Corona 631 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1988 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2406 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
411 Riverside Northwest Corona 632 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1989 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2407 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
412 Riverside Northwest Corona 633 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1990 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2408 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
413 Riverside Northwest Corona 634 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1991 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2409 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
414 Riverside Northwest Corona 635 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1992 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2410 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
415 Riverside Northwest Corona 636 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1993 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2411 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
416 Riverside Northwest Corona 637 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1994 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2412 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
417 Riverside Northwest Corona 638 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1995 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2413 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
418 Riverside Northwest Corona 639 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1996 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2586 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
419 Riverside Northwest Corona 640 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1997 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2587 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
420 Riverside Northwest Corona 641 Riverside Northwest Eastvale 1998 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2588 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
421 Riverside Northwest Corona 842 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 1999 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2589 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
422 Riverside Northwest Corona 843 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2000 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2590 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
423 Riverside Northwest Corona 844 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2001 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2591 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
424 Riverside Northwest Corona 845 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2002 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2592 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
425 Riverside Northwest Corona 846 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2003 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2593 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
426 Riverside Northwest Corona 847 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2004 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2594 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
427 Riverside Northwest Corona 848 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2005 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2595 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
428 Riverside Northwest Corona 849 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2006 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2596 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
429 Riverside Northwest Corona 850 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2007 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2597 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
430 Riverside Northwest Corona 851 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2008 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2598 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
431 Riverside Northwest Corona 852 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2009 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2599 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
432 Riverside Northwest Corona 853 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2010 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2600 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
433 Riverside Northwest Corona 854 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2011 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2601 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
434 Riverside Northwest Corona 855 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2012 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2602 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
435 Riverside Northwest Corona 856 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2013 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2603 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
436 Riverside Northwest Corona 857 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2014 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2604 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
437 Riverside Northwest Corona 858 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2015 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2605 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
438 Riverside Northwest Corona 859 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2016 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2606 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
439 Riverside Northwest Corona 860 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2017 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2607 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
440 Riverside Northwest Corona 861 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2018 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2664 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
441 Riverside Northwest Corona 862 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2019 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2666 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
442 Riverside Northwest Corona 863 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2020 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2671 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
443 Riverside Northwest Corona 864 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2021 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2672 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
444 Riverside Northwest Corona 865 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2022 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2680 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
445 Riverside Northwest Corona 866 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2023 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2681 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
446 Riverside Northwest Corona 867 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2024 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2705 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
447 Riverside Northwest Corona 868 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2025 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2706 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
448 Riverside Northwest Corona 869 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2026 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2707 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
449 Riverside Northwest Corona 870 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2027 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2726 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
450 Riverside Northwest Corona 871 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2028 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2730 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
451 Riverside Northwest Corona 872 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2029 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2731 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
452 Riverside Northwest Corona 873 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2030 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2732 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
453 Riverside Northwest Corona 874 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2031 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2734 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
454 Riverside Northwest Corona 875 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2032 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2735 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
455 Riverside Northwest Corona 876 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2033 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2736 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
456 Riverside Northwest Corona 877 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2034 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2737 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
457 Riverside Northwest Corona 878 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2035 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2738 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
458 Riverside Northwest Corona 879 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2036 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2739 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
459 Riverside Northwest Corona 880 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2037 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2740 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
460 Riverside Northwest Corona 881 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2038 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2741 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
461 Riverside Northwest Corona 882 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2039 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2742 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
462 Riverside Northwest Corona 883 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2040 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2743 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
463 Riverside Northwest Corona 884 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2041 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2749 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
464 Riverside Northwest Corona 885 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2042 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2750 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
465 Riverside Northwest Corona 886 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2043 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2751 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
466 Riverside Northwest Corona 887 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2044 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2763 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
467 Riverside Northwest Corona 888 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2045 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2764 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
468 Riverside Northwest Corona 889 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2046 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2765 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
469 Riverside Northwest Corona 890 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2047 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2766 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
470 Riverside Northwest Corona 891 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2048 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2767 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
471 Riverside Northwest Corona 892 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2049 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2768 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
472 Riverside Northwest Corona 893 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2050 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2769 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
473 Riverside Northwest Corona 894 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2051 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2770 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
474 Riverside Northwest Corona 895 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2052 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2771 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
475 Riverside Northwest Corona 896 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2053 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2772 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
476 Riverside Northwest Corona 897 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2054 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2773 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
477 Riverside Northwest Corona 898 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2055 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2774 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
478 Riverside Northwest Corona 899 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2056 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2775 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
479 Riverside Northwest Corona 900 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2057 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2776 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
480 Riverside Northwest Corona 901 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2058 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2777 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
481 Riverside Northwest Corona 902 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2059 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2778 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
482 Riverside Northwest Corona 903 Riverside Northwest Jurupa Valley 2060 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2779 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
483 Riverside Northwest Corona 1540 Riverside Northwest Norco 2061 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2790 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
484 Riverside Northwest Corona 1541 Riverside Northwest Norco 2062 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2791 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
485 Riverside Northwest Corona 1542 Riverside Northwest Norco 2063 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2792 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
486 Riverside Northwest Corona 1543 Riverside Northwest Norco 2064 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2798 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
487 Riverside Northwest Corona 1544 Riverside Northwest Norco 2065 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2799 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
488 Riverside Northwest Corona 1545 Riverside Northwest Norco 2066 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2800 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
489 Riverside Northwest Corona 1546 Riverside Northwest Norco 2067 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2801 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
490 Riverside Northwest Corona 1547 Riverside Northwest Norco 2068 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2803 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
491 Riverside Northwest Corona 1548 Riverside Northwest Norco 2069 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2805 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
492 Riverside Northwest Corona 1549 Riverside Northwest Norco 2070 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2806 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
493 Riverside Northwest Corona 1550 Riverside Northwest Norco 2071 Riverside Northwest Riverside 2808 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
494 Riverside Northwest Corona 1551 Riverside Northwest Norco 2072 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3093 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
495 Riverside Northwest Corona 1552 Riverside Northwest Norco 2073 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3146 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
496 Riverside Northwest Corona 1553 Riverside Northwest Norco 2074 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3147 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
497 Riverside Northwest Corona 1554 Riverside Northwest Norco 2075 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3148 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
498 Riverside Northwest Corona 1555 Riverside Northwest Norco 2076 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3149 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
499 Riverside Northwest Corona 1556 Riverside Northwest Norco 2077 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3152 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
500 Riverside Northwest Corona 1557 Riverside Northwest Norco 2078 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3174 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
501 Riverside Northwest Corona 1558 Riverside Northwest Norco 2079 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3185 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
502 Riverside Northwest Corona 1559 Riverside Northwest Norco 2080 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3186 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
503 Riverside Northwest Corona 1560 Riverside Northwest Norco 2081 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3187 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
504 Riverside Northwest Corona 1561 Riverside Northwest Norco 2082 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3188 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
505 Riverside Northwest Corona 1562 Riverside Northwest Norco 2083 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3189 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
506 Riverside Northwest Corona 1563 Riverside Northwest Norco 2084 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3190 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
507 Riverside Northwest Corona 1564 Riverside Northwest Norco 2085 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3191 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
508 Riverside Northwest Corona 1565 Riverside Northwest Norco 2086 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3192 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
509 Riverside Northwest Corona 1566 Riverside Northwest Norco 2087 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3193 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
510 Riverside Northwest Corona 1567 Riverside Northwest Norco 2088 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3203 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
511 Riverside Northwest Corona 1568 Riverside Northwest Norco 2089 Riverside Northwest Riverside 3204 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
512 Riverside Northwest Corona 3206 Riverside Northwest Unincorporated
513 Riverside Northwest Corona
514 Riverside Northwest Corona
515 Riverside Northwest Corona
516 Riverside Northwest Corona
517 Riverside Northwest Corona
518 Riverside Northwest Corona
519 Riverside Northwest Corona
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT I-1 (continued)
RivCoM TAZ Correspondence by WRCOG TUMF Zone - Pass
TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City
1 Riverside Pass Banning 128 Riverside Pass Calimesa
2 Riverside Pass Banning 129 Riverside Pass Calimesa
3 Riverside Pass Banning 130 Riverside Pass Calimesa
4 Riverside Pass Banning 131 Riverside Pass Calimesa
5 Riverside Pass Banning 132 Riverside Pass Calimesa
6 Riverside Pass Banning 133 Riverside Pass Calimesa
7 Riverside Pass Banning 134 Riverside Pass Calimesa
8 Riverside Pass Banning 135 Riverside Pass Calimesa
9 Riverside Pass Banning 136 Riverside Pass Calimesa
10 Riverside Pass Banning 137 Riverside Pass Calimesa
11 Riverside Pass Banning 138 Riverside Pass Calimesa
12 Riverside Pass Banning 139 Riverside Pass Calimesa
13 Riverside Pass Banning 140 Riverside Pass Calimesa
14 Riverside Pass Banning 141 Riverside Pass Calimesa
15 Riverside Pass Banning 142 Riverside Pass Calimesa
16 Riverside Pass Banning 143 Riverside Pass Calimesa
17 Riverside Pass Banning 144 Riverside Pass Calimesa
18 Riverside Pass Banning 145 Riverside Pass Calimesa
19 Riverside Pass Banning 146 Riverside Pass Calimesa
20 Riverside Pass Banning 147 Riverside Pass Calimesa
21 Riverside Pass Banning 148 Riverside Pass Calimesa
22 Riverside Pass Banning 149 Riverside Pass Calimesa
23 Riverside Pass Banning 150 Riverside Pass Calimesa
24 Riverside Pass Banning 151 Riverside Pass Calimesa
25 Riverside Pass Banning 152 Riverside Pass Calimesa
26 Riverside Pass Banning 153 Riverside Pass Calimesa
27 Riverside Pass Banning 154 Riverside Pass Calimesa
28 Riverside Pass Banning 1278 Riverside Pass Moreno Valley
29 Riverside Pass Banning 2323 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
30 Riverside Pass Banning 2355 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
31 Riverside Pass Banning 2356 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
32 Riverside Pass Banning 2357 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
33 Riverside Pass Banning 2363 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
34 Riverside Pass Banning 2364 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
35 Riverside Pass Banning 2365 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
36 Riverside Pass Banning 2627 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
37 Riverside Pass Banning 2629 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
38 Riverside Pass Banning 2638 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
39 Riverside Pass Banning 2639 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
40 Riverside Pass Banning 2640 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
41 Riverside Pass Banning 2650 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
42 Riverside Pass Banning 2656 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
43 Riverside Pass Banning 2657 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
44 Riverside Pass Banning 2658 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
45 Riverside Pass Banning 2659 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
46 Riverside Pass Banning 2661 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
47 Riverside Pass Banning 2667 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
48 Riverside Pass Banning 2674 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
49 Riverside Pass Banning 2858 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
50 Riverside Pass Banning 2859 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
51 Riverside Pass Banning 2896 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
52 Riverside Pass Banning 2897 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
53 Riverside Pass Banning 2898 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
54 Riverside Pass Banning 2899 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
55 Riverside Pass Banning 2900 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
56 Riverside Pass Banning 2901 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
57 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2902 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
58 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2903 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
59 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2904 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
60 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2908 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
61 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2909 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
62 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2910 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
63 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2911 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
64 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2912 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
65 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2913 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
66 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2914 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
67 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2915 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
68 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2916 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
69 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2917 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
70 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2927 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
71 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2939 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
72 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2940 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
73 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2941 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
74 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2942 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
75 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2943 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
76 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2944 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
77 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2945 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
78 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2946 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
79 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2947 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
80 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2948 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
81 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2949 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
82 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2950 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
83 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2951 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
84 Riverside Pass Beaumont 2952 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
85 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3042 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
86 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3156 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
87 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3157 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
88 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3158 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
89 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3159 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
90 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3160 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
91 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3161 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
92 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3164 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
93 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3216 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
94 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3217 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
95 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3218 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
96 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3219 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
97 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3220 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
98 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3221 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
99 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3222 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
100 Riverside Pass Beaumont 3223 Riverside Pass Unincorporated
101 Riverside Pass Beaumont
102 Riverside Pass Beaumont
103 Riverside Pass Beaumont
104 Riverside Pass Beaumont
105 Riverside Pass Beaumont
106 Riverside Pass Beaumont
107 Riverside Pass Beaumont
108 Riverside Pass Beaumont
109 Riverside Pass Beaumont
110 Riverside Pass Beaumont
111 Riverside Pass Beaumont
112 Riverside Pass Beaumont
113 Riverside Pass Beaumont
114 Riverside Pass Beaumont
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT I-1 (continued)
RivCoM TAZ Correspondence by WRCOG TUMF Zone - Southwest
TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City
155 Riverside Southwest Canyon Lake 1351 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1531 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2541 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
156 Riverside Southwest Canyon Lake 1352 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1532 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2542 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
157 Riverside Southwest Canyon Lake 1353 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1533 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2543 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
158 Riverside Southwest Canyon Lake 1354 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1534 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2544 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
159 Riverside Southwest Canyon Lake 1355 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1535 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2545 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
160 Riverside Southwest Canyon Lake 1356 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1536 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2546 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
161 Riverside Southwest Canyon Lake 1357 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1537 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2547 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
938 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1358 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1538 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2548 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
939 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1359 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1539 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2549 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
940 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1360 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2208 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2550 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
941 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1361 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2209 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2551 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
942 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1362 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2210 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2552 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
943 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1363 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2211 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2553 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
944 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1364 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2212 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2554 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
945 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1365 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2213 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2555 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
946 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1366 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2214 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2556 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
947 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1367 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2215 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2557 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
948 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1368 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2216 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2558 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
949 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1369 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2217 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2559 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
950 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1370 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2218 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2560 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
951 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1371 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2219 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2561 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
952 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1372 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2220 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2562 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
953 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1373 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2221 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2563 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
954 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1374 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2222 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2564 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
955 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1375 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2223 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2582 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
956 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1376 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2224 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2583 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
957 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1377 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2225 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2584 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
958 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1378 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2226 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2585 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
959 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1379 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2227 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2662 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
960 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1380 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2228 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2663 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
961 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1381 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2229 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2665 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
962 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1382 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2230 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2695 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
963 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1383 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2231 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2696 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
964 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1384 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2232 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2697 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
965 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1385 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2233 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2698 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
966 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1386 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2234 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2699 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
967 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1387 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2235 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2700 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
968 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1388 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2236 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2701 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
969 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1389 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2237 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2702 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
970 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1390 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2238 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2703 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
971 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1391 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2239 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2704 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
972 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1392 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2240 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2708 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
973 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1393 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2241 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2718 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
974 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1394 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2242 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2720 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
975 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1395 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2243 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2813 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
976 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1396 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2244 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2814 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
977 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1397 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2245 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2837 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
978 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1398 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2246 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2838 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
979 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1399 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2247 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2846 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
980 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1400 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2248 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2847 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
981 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1401 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2249 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2849 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
982 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1402 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2250 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2852 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
983 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1403 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2251 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2854 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
984 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1404 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2252 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2855 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
985 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1405 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2253 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2860 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
986 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1406 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2254 Riverside Southwest Temecula 2861 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
987 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1407 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2255 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3091 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
988 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1408 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2256 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3092 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
989 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1409 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2257 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3094 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
990 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1410 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2258 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3095 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
991 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1411 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2259 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3096 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
992 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1412 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2260 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3097 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
993 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1413 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2261 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3098 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
994 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1414 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2262 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3099 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
995 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1415 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2263 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3100 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
996 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1416 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2264 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3101 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
997 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1417 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2265 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3102 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
998 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1418 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2266 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3103 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
999 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1419 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2267 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3104 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1000 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1420 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2268 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3105 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1001 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1421 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2269 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3106 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1002 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1422 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2270 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3108 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1003 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1423 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2271 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3109 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1004 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1424 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2272 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3110 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1005 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1425 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2273 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3111 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1006 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1426 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2274 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3112 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1007 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1427 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2275 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3113 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1009 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1428 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2276 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3114 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1010 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1429 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2277 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3115 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1011 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1430 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2278 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3116 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1012 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1431 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2279 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3117 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1013 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1432 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2280 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3118 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1014 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1433 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2281 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3119 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1015 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1434 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2282 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3120 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1016 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1435 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2283 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3121 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1017 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1436 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2284 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3122 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1018 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1437 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2285 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3123 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1019 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1438 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2286 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3124 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1020 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1439 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2287 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3125 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1021 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1440 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2288 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3126 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1022 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1441 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2289 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3127 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1023 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1442 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2290 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3128 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1024 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1443 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2291 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3129 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1025 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1444 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2292 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3130 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1026 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1445 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2293 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3131 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1027 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1446 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2294 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3132 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1028 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1447 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2295 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3133 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1029 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1448 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2296 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3134 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1030 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1449 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2297 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3135 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1031 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1450 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2298 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3136 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1032 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1451 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2299 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3137 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1033 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1452 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2300 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3138 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1034 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1453 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2301 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3145 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1035 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1454 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2302 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3150 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1036 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1455 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2303 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3176 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1037 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1456 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2304 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3199 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1038 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1457 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2305 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3200 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1039 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1458 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2306 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3201 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1040 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1459 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2307 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3202 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1041 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1460 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2308 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3205 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1042 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1461 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2309 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3207 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1043 Riverside Southwest Lake Elsinore 1462 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2310 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3212 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1286 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1463 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2311 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3213 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1287 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1464 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2312 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3214 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1288 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1465 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2313 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3224 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1289 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1466 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2314 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3226 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1290 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1467 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2315 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3234 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1291 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1468 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2316 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3237 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1292 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1469 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2317 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3238 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1293 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1470 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2318 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3239 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1294 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1471 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2319 Riverside Southwest Temecula 3240 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1295 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1472 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2395 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3241 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated
1296 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1473 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2396 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3246 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1297 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1474 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2414 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3247 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1298 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1475 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2422 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3248 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1299 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1476 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2423 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3249 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1300 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1477 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2424 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3250 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1301 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1478 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2425 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3251 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1302 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1479 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2426 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3252 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1303 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1480 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2427 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3253 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1304 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1481 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2428 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3254 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1305 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1482 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2429 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3255 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1306 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1483 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2465 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3256 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1307 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1484 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2466 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3257 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1308 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1485 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2467 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3258 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1309 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1486 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2473 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3259 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1310 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1487 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2474 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3260 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1311 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1488 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2475 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3261 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1312 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1489 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2476 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3262 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1313 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1490 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2477 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3263 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1314 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1491 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2478 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3264 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1315 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1492 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2479 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3265 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1316 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1493 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2480 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3266 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1317 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1494 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2481 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3267 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1318 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1495 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2492 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3268 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1319 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1496 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2495 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3269 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1320 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1497 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2496 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3270 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1321 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1498 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2497 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3271 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1322 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1499 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2498 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3272 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1323 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1500 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2499 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3273 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1324 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1501 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2500 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3274 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1325 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1502 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2501 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3275 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1326 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1503 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2509 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3276 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1327 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1504 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2510 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3277 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1328 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1505 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2511 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3278 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1329 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1506 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2512 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3279 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1330 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1507 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2518 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3280 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1331 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1508 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2519 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3281 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1332 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1509 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2520 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3282 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1333 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1510 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2521 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3283 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1334 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1511 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2522 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3284 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1335 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1512 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2523 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3285 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1336 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1513 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2524 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3286 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1337 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1514 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2528 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3287 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1338 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1515 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2529 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3288 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1339 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1516 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2530 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3289 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1340 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1517 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2531 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3290 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1341 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1518 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2532 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3291 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1342 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1519 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2533 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3292 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1343 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1520 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2534 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3293 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1344 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1521 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2535 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3294 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1345 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1522 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2536 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3295 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1346 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1523 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2537 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3296 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1347 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1524 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2538 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3297 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1348 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1525 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2539 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3298 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1349 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1526 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 2540 Riverside Southwest Unincorporated 3299 Riverside Southwest Wildomar
1350 Riverside Southwest Murrieta 1527 Riverside Southwest Murrieta
1528 Riverside Southwest Murrieta
1529 Riverside Southwest Murrieta
1530 Riverside Southwest Murrieta
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT I-1 (continued)
RivCoM TAZ Correspondence by WRCOG TUMF Zones - Riverside County Outside WRCOG
TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City TAZ County WRCOG Zone City
115 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 739 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1661 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2516 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
116 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 740 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1662 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2517 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
117 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 741 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1663 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2525 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
118 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 742 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1664 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2526 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
119 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 743 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1665 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2527 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
120 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 744 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1666 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2565 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
121 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 745 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1667 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2566 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
122 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 746 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1668 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2567 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
123 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 747 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1669 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2568 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
124 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 748 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1670 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2569 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
125 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 749 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1671 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2570 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
126 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 750 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1672 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2571 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
127 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Blythe 751 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indian Wells 1673 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2572 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
162 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 752 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1674 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2573 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
163 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 753 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1675 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2574 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
164 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 754 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1676 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2575 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
165 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 755 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1677 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2576 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
166 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 756 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1678 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2577 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
167 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 757 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1679 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2578 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
168 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 758 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1680 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2579 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
169 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 759 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1681 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2580 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
170 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 760 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1682 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2581 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
171 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 761 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1683 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2608 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
172 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 762 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1684 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2609 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
173 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 763 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1685 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2610 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
174 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 764 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1686 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2611 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
175 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 765 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1687 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2612 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
176 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 766 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1688 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2613 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
177 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 767 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1689 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2614 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
178 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 768 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1690 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2615 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
179 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 769 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1691 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2616 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
180 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 770 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1692 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2617 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
181 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 771 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1693 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2618 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
182 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 772 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1694 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2619 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
183 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 773 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1695 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2620 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
184 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 774 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1696 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2621 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
185 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 775 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1697 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2622 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
186 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 776 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1698 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2623 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
187 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 777 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1699 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2624 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
188 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 778 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1700 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2636 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
189 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 779 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1701 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2637 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
190 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 780 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1702 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2918 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
191 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 781 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1703 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2923 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
192 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 782 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1704 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2924 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
193 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 783 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1705 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2925 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
194 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 784 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1706 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2926 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
195 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 785 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1707 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2928 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
196 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 786 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1708 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2929 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
197 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 787 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1709 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2930 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
198 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 788 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1710 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2931 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
199 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 789 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1711 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2932 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
200 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 790 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1712 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2933 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
201 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 791 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1713 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2953 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
202 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 792 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1714 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2954 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
203 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 793 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1715 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2955 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
204 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 794 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1716 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2956 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
205 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 795 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1717 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2957 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
206 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 796 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1718 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2958 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
207 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 797 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1719 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2959 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
208 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 798 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1720 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2960 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
209 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 799 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1721 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2961 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
210 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 800 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1722 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2962 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
211 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 801 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1723 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2963 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
212 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 802 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1724 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2964 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
213 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 803 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1725 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2965 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
214 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 804 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1726 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2966 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
215 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 805 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1727 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2967 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
216 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 806 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1728 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2968 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
217 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 807 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1729 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2969 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
218 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 808 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1730 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2970 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
219 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 809 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1731 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2971 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
220 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 810 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1732 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2972 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
221 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 811 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1733 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2973 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
222 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 812 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1734 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2974 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
223 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 813 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1735 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2975 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
224 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 814 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1736 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2976 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
225 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 815 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1737 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2977 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
226 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 816 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1738 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2978 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
227 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 817 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1739 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2979 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
228 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 818 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1740 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2980 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
229 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 819 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1741 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2981 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
230 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 820 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1742 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2982 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
231 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 821 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1743 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2983 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
232 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 822 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1744 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2984 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
233 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 823 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1745 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2985 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
234 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 824 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1746 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2986 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
235 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 825 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1747 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2987 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
236 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 826 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1748 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2988 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
237 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 827 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1749 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2989 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
238 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 828 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1750 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2990 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
239 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 829 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1751 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2991 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
240 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Cathedral City 830 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1752 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2992 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
241 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 831 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1753 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2993 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
242 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 832 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1754 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2994 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
243 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 833 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1755 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2995 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
244 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 834 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1756 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2996 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
245 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 835 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1757 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2997 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
246 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 836 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1758 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2998 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
247 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 837 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1759 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 2999 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
248 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 838 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1760 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3000 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
249 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 839 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1761 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3001 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
250 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 840 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1762 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3002 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
251 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 841 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Indio 1763 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3003 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
252 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 904 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1764 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3004 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
253 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 905 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1765 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3005 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
254 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 906 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1766 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3006 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
255 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 907 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1767 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3007 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
256 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 908 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1768 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3008 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
257 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 909 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1769 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3009 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
258 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 910 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1770 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3010 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
259 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 911 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1771 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3011 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
260 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 912 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1772 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3012 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
261 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 913 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1773 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3013 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
262 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 914 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1774 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3014 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
263 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 915 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1775 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3015 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
264 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 916 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1776 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3016 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
265 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 917 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1777 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3017 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
266 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 918 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1778 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3018 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
267 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 919 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1779 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3019 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
268 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 920 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1780 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3020 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
269 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 921 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1781 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3021 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
270 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 922 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1782 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3022 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
271 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 923 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1783 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3023 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
272 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 924 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1784 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3024 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
273 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 925 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1785 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3025 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
274 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 926 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1786 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3026 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
275 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 927 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1787 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3027 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
276 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 928 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1788 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3028 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
277 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 929 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1789 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3029 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
278 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 930 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1790 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3030 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
279 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 931 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1791 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3031 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
280 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 932 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1792 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Springs 3032 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
281 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 933 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1880 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3033 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
282 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 934 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1881 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3034 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
283 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 935 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1882 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3035 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
284 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 936 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1883 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3036 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
285 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 937 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones La Quinta 1884 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3037 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
286 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1569 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1885 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3038 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
287 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1570 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1886 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3039 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
288 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1571 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1887 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3040 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
289 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1572 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1888 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3041 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
290 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1573 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1889 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3043 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
291 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1574 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1890 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3044 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
292 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1575 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1891 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3045 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
293 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1576 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1892 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3046 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
294 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1577 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1893 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3047 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
295 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1578 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1894 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3048 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
296 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1579 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1895 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3049 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
297 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1580 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1896 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3050 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
298 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1581 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1897 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3051 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
299 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1582 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1898 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3052 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
300 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1583 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1899 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3053 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
301 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1584 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1900 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3054 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
302 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1585 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1901 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3055 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
303 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1586 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1902 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3056 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
304 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1587 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1903 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3057 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
305 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1588 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1904 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3058 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
306 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1589 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1905 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3059 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
307 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1590 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1906 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3060 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
308 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1591 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1907 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3061 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
309 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1592 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1908 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3062 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
310 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1593 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 1909 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Rancho Mirage 3063 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
311 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1594 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2366 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3064 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
312 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1595 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2367 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3065 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
313 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1596 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2368 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3066 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
314 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1597 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2369 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3067 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
315 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1598 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2415 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3068 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
316 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1599 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2416 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3069 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
317 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1600 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2417 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3070 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
318 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1601 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2418 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3071 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
319 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1602 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2419 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3072 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
320 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1603 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2420 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3073 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
321 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1604 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2421 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3074 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
322 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1605 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2430 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3075 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
323 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1606 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2431 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3076 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
324 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1607 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2432 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3077 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
325 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1608 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2433 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3078 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
326 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1609 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2434 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3079 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
327 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1610 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2435 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3080 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
328 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1611 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2436 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3081 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
329 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1612 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2437 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3082 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
330 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1613 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2438 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3083 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
331 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Coachella 1614 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2439 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3084 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
570 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1615 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2440 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3085 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
571 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1616 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2441 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3086 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
572 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1617 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2442 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3087 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
573 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1618 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2443 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3088 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
574 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1619 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2444 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3089 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
575 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1620 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2445 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3090 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
576 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1621 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2446 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3107 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
577 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1622 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2447 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3139 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
578 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1623 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2448 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3140 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
579 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1624 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2449 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3141 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
580 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1625 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2450 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3142 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
581 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1626 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2451 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3143 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
582 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1627 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2452 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3144 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
583 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1628 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2453 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3151 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
584 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1629 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2454 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3153 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
585 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1630 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2455 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3154 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
586 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1631 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2456 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3155 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
587 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1632 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2457 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3162 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
588 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1633 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2458 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3163 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
589 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1634 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2459 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3165 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
590 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1635 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2460 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3166 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
591 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1636 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2461 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3167 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
592 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1637 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2462 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3168 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
593 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1638 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2463 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3169 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
594 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1639 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2464 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3170 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
595 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1640 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2468 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3171 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
596 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1641 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2469 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3172 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
597 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1642 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2470 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3173 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
598 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1643 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2482 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3175 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
599 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1644 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2483 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3178 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
600 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1645 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2484 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3179 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
601 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1646 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2485 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3180 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
602 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Desert Hot Springs 1647 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2486 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3181 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1648 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2487 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3182 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1649 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2488 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3184 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1650 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2489 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3208 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1651 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2490 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3209 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1652 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2502 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3210 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1653 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2503 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3211 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1654 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2504 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated 3215 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1655 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2505 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1656 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2506 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1657 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2507 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1658 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2508 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1659 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2513 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
1660 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Palm Desert 2514 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
2515 Riverside Outside TUMF Zones Unincorporated
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT I-1 (continued)
RivCoM TAZ Correspondence by WRCOG TUMF Zones - Outside Riverside County
TAZ County WRCOG Zone TAZ County WRCOG Zone TAZ County WRCOG Zone
3300 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3384 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3370 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3301 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3385 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3371 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3302 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3386 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3372 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3303 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3387 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3373 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3304 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3388 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3374 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3305 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3389 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3375 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3306 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3390 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3376 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3307 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3391 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3377 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3308 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3392 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3378 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3309 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3393 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3379 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3310 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3394 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3380 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3311 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3395 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3381 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3312 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3396 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3382 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3313 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3397 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones 3383 San Diego Outside TUMF Zones
3314 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3398 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3315 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3399 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3316 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3400 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3317 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3401 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3318 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3402 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3319 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3403 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3320 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3404 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3321 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3405 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3322 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3406 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3323 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3407 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3324 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3408 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3325 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3409 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3326 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3410 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3327 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3411 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3328 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3412 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3329 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3413 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3330 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3414 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3331 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3415 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3332 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3416 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3333 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3417 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3334 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3418 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3335 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3419 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3336 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3420 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3337 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3421 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3338 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3422 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3339 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3423 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3340 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3424 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3341 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3425 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3342 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3426 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3343 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3427 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3344 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3428 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3345 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3429 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3346 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3430 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3347 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3431 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3348 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3432 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3349 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3433 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3350 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3434 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3351 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3435 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3352 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3436 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3353 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3437 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3354 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3438 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3355 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3439 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3356 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3440 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3357 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3441 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3358 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3442 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3359 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3443 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3360 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3444 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3361 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3445 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3362 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3446 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3363 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3447 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3364 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3448 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3365 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3449 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3366 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3450 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3367 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3451 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3368 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3452 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3369 Orange Outside TUMF Zones 3453 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3454 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3455 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3456 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3457 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3458 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3459 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3460 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3461 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3462 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3463 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3464 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3465 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3466 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3467 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3468 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3469 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3470 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3471 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3472 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3473 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3474 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3475 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3476 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3477 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3478 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3479 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3480 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3481 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
3482 San Bernardino Outside TUMF Zones
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TO
FROM Southwest
Central 187,280 10,596 40,037 2,900 24,865 25,446 291,124
Hemet/San Jacinto 13,060 93,350 3,815 3,847 7,263 8,090 129,424
Northwest 26,655 1,189 333,593 1,239 4,956 86,710 454,342
Pass Area 3,663 3,372 2,768 49,166 402 14,458 73,828
Southwest 25,061 7,304 14,708 914 298,362 27,954 374,302
Outside WRCOG 15,413 3,353 86,546 11,208 14,949 131,469
TOTAL 271,131 119,163 481,467 69,274 350,797 162,658 1,454,490
* Based on RIVCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, February 2024
TO
FROM Southwest
Central 64.3%3.6%13.8%1.0%8.5%8.7%100%
Hemet/San Jacinto 10.1%72.1%2.9%3.0%5.6%6.3%100%
Northwest 5.9%0.3%73.4%0.3%1.1%19.1%100%
Pass Area 5.0%4.6%3.7%66.6%0.5%19.6%100%
Southwest 6.7%2.0%3.9%0.2%79.7%7.5%100%
* Based on RIVCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, February 2024
EXHIBIT I-3 - 2045 AM Peak Period Percent Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone*
Central
Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area
Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
EXHIBIT I-2 - 2045 AM Peak Period Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone*
Central
Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area
Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TO
FROM Southwest
Central 230,328 12,878 49,743 3,401 30,237 32,112 358,698
Hemet/San Jacinto 16,341 115,656 4,833 4,586 8,818 9,988 160,221
Northwest 31,923 1,495 409,641 1,448 6,076 109,331 559,914
Pass Area 4,405 4,214 3,346 61,219 506 17,876 91,566
Southwest 30,752 8,928 18,144 1,062 368,893 34,759 462,537
Outside WRCOG 18,495 4,221 106,166 13,282 18,918 161,080
TOTAL 332,244 147,391 591,872 84,997 433,447 204,065 1,794,017
* Based on RIVCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, February 2024
TO
FROM Southwest
Central 64.2%3.6%13.9%0.9%8.4%9.0%100%
Hemet/San Jacinto 10.2%72.2%3.0%2.9%5.5%6.2%100%
Northwest 5.7%0.3%73.2%0.3%1.1%19.5%100%
Pass Area 4.8%4.6%3.7%66.9%0.6%19.5%100%
Southwest 6.6%1.9%3.9%0.2%79.8%7.5%100%
* Based on RIVCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, February 2024
EXHIBIT I-5 - 2045 PM Peak Period Percent Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone*
Central
Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area
Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
EXHIBIT I-4 - 2045 PM Peak Period Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone*
Central
Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area
Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TO
FROM Southwest
Central 313,691 17,511 64,577 3,948 39,446 41,718 480,890
Hemet/San Jacinto 21,579 162,035 5,659 6,318 10,987 11,533 218,110
Northwest 43,461 1,848 565,759 1,528 7,406 160,552 780,554
Pass Area 6,068 6,269 4,125 91,253 631 24,354 132,700
Southwest 40,442 11,861 22,506 1,132 508,327 40,698 624,964
Outside WRCOG 25,307 5,301 145,054 16,534 23,061 215,257
TOTAL 450,546 204,825 807,679 120,712 589,859 278,854 2,452,475
* Based on RIVCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, February 2024
TO
FROM Southwest
Central 65.2%3.6%13.4%0.8%8.2%8.7%100%
Hemet/San Jacinto 9.9%74.3%2.6%2.9%5.0%5.3%100%
Northwest 5.6%0.2%72.5%0.2%0.9%20.6%100%
Pass Area 4.6%4.7%3.1%68.8%0.5%18.4%100%
Southwest 6.5%1.9%3.6%0.2%81.3%6.5%100%
* Based on RIVCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, February 2024
Table I-7 - 2045 Off-Peak Period Percent Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone*
Central
Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area
Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
EXHIBIT I-6 - 2045 Off-Peak Period Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone*
Central
Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area
Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
TO
FROM Southwest
Central 731,298 40,985 154,356 10,249 94,547 99,276 1,130,712
Hemet/San Jacinto 50,980 371,040 14,306 14,750 27,068 29,611 507,755
Northwest 102,039 4,532 1,308,993 4,215 18,439 356,593 1,794,811
Pass Area 14,136 13,855 10,239 201,638 1,539 56,688 298,095
Southwest 96,254 28,093 55,358 3,108 1,175,582 103,410 1,461,804
Outside WRCOG 59,214 12,874 337,766 41,024 56,927 507,806
TOTAL 1,053,921 471,379 1,881,018 274,984 1,374,103 645,578 5,700,982
* Based on RIVCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, February 2024
TO
FROM Southwest
Central 64.7%3.6%13.7%0.9%8.4%8.8%100%
Hemet/San Jacinto 10.0%73.1%2.8%2.9%5.3%5.8%100%
Northwest 5.7%0.3%72.9%0.2%1.0%19.9%100%
Pass Area 4.7%4.6%3.4%67.6%0.5%19.0%100%
Southwest 6.6%1.9%3.8%0.2%80.4%7.1%100%
* Based on RIVCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, February 2024
EXHIBIT I-9 - 2045 Percent Daily Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone*
Central
Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area
Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
EXHIBIT I-8 - 2045 Daily Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone*
Central
Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area
Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
J-1
Appendix J - Western Riverside County Regional Trip Purpose
On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into law,
fundamentally changing the way that transportation impacts are to be assessed
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The new law requires
CEQA guidelines to be amended to provide an alternative to Level of Service for
evaluating transportation impacts. The intent of the change is to introduce alternate
criteria that “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of
multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” (New Public
Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1).) The primary effect of the new law is to establish
the use of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the preferred basis for measuring traffic
impacts, in recognition of the fact that VMT more accurately reflects traffic impacts as
it takes into account both the number of trips being made and the distance of those
trips. Although CEQA and the specific provision of SB 743 do not generally apply directly
to impact fee programs (which are governed by the provision of the Mitigation Fee
Act), the reasoning behind SB 743 establishing VMT as the preferred basis for CEQA
traffic impact measurement is sound and equally applicable for impact fee nexus
determination.
Linking the TUMF to VMT does enable developers to continue to use TUMF participation
as demonstration of partial mitigation for their cumulative regional transportation
impacts under the new SB 743 requirements. Furthermore, consistent with SB 743,
consideration of travel impacts in terms of peak period VMT more accurately reflects
the realities of travel behavior as the basis for determining impacts on the regional
transportation system by reflecting the peak demands on the system based on the
number of trips and the cumulative distance these trips occupy facilities in the system.
Variation in trip length for different trip purposes is important to quantify since the
impact associated with a trip is not limited to whether a trip occurs or not. A longer
distance trip occupies more roadways over a longer period of time (all else being
equal), and therefore goes through more intersections and consumes more capacity,
thus requiring greater levels of mitigation. As the purpose of the TUMF is to mitigate the
cumulative regional traffic impacts of future growth, a VMT based approach to
defining the rough proportionality of impacts resulting from various differing types of
new development better aligns with this purpose.
RivCoM is the primary analytical toll used to forecast VMT in Riverside County. RivCoM
was developed based on the SCAG regional travel demand model, whose underlying
model travel characteristics were developed based on national and regional travel
behavior surveys, including the U.S. Census and the California Household Travel Survey.
The methodology for using travel demand models, including RivCoM, as the basis for
calculating and measuring VMT is consistent with NEPA and CEQA guidance, and
accepted transportation planning practice.
The RivCoM model produces person-trips (irrespective of mode choice) on the basis of
five trip purposes including home-based-work (HBW), home-based-other (HBO), home-
based-school (HBS), home-based-university (HBU), and non-home based (NHB). Peak
period, off-peak period and daily vehicle trips and VMT are derived from the person-trip
productions based on mode choice assignments and differing trip length
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
J-2
characteristics embedded on the model parameters. Daily VMT results were
aggregated into home-based VMT and non-home-based VMT for each scenario to
represent the level of travel demand and impact on the transportation system
attributable to each trip purpose.
The attribution of VMT associated with home-based trip purposes to residential land uses
and non-home-based trips to non-residential land uses is consistent with the provisions
of NCHRP Report #187 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and
Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978), a widely-
referenced source for travel estimation techniques used for travel demand modeling.
Chapter 2 of this report, which details trip generation estimation, states that "HBW
(Home Based Work) and HBNW (Home Based Non Work) trips are generated at the
households, whereas the NHB (Non-Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere.”
Consistent with NCHRP Report #187, aggregating person trip productions and
associated VMT into home-based (combining home-based-work, home-based-other
and home-based-school) and non-home-based (combining work-based-other, and
other-based-other) represents an appropriate way to allocate trip generation and
associated impacts between residential and non-residential land uses for the purpose
of estimating the rough proportionality of the TUMF fee.
Exhibits J-1 through J-36 of this Appendix include the RivCoM model data aggregated
for peak period, off-peak period and daily person VMT for each trip purpose between
the respective TUMF zones, and for both model year scenarios. The growth in daily VMT
for each trip purpose was calculated as the difference between the daily VMT in the
2018 Existing scenario and the daily VMT in the 2045 No Build scenario. The growth in
home-based daily VMT represents 77.7% of the total growth in daily VMT, and the
growth in non-home-based daily VMT represents 22.3% of the total growth in daily VMT,
as shown in Table 5.4. The relative share of the growth in daily VMT summarized in
Table 5.4 provides the basis for estimating the rough proportionality of the TUMF network
impacts and related mitigation costs (and associated fees) attributable to new
residential and non-residential development, respectively.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 1,084,569 176,144 919,950 98,767 494,843 1,672,280 4,446,553
Hemet/San Jacinto 202,282 474,270 189,620 93,211 207,871 736,736 1,903,990
Northwest 471,239 62,909 3,082,883 69,489 235,185 3,500,199 7,421,903
Pass Area 86,956 66,611 120,609 230,246 31,017 531,753 1,067,192
Southwest 474,113 188,640 635,435 61,535 1,822,831 2,240,495 5,423,048
Outside WRCOG 833,664 293,941 3,584,150 403,303 1,245,556 129,717,014 136,077,627
TOTAL 3,152,824 1,262,514 8,532,646 956,551 4,037,302 138,398,477 156,340,314
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-1
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
TOTAL PEAK PERIOD TRIPS FOR ALL PURPOSES - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 165,241 58,992 411,439 65,622 197,893 1,220,777 2,119,965
Hemet/San Jacinto 70,807 53,805 128,758 48,898 103,290 567,394 972,951
Northwest 143,340 37,259 674,676 53,185 136,185 1,920,635 2,965,279
Pass Area 25,983 15,665 65,646 34,287 18,981 304,632 465,194
Southwest 165,236 76,537 376,007 49,330 410,382 1,721,102 2,798,594
Outside WRCOG 420,948 169,433 1,777,239 260,161 753,400 45,139,830 48,521,011
TOTAL 991,555 411,691 3,433,764 511,483 1,620,131 50,874,369 57,842,994
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-2
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
PEAK PERIOD HOME-BASED-WORK TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 673,880 84,730 364,070 26,370 227,784 361,436 1,738,269
Hemet/San Jacinto 100,994 306,411 50,898 33,509 84,214 146,284 722,311
Northwest 239,023 20,386 1,679,367 13,441 81,648 1,178,130 3,211,995
Pass Area 45,133 33,006 42,321 129,128 10,013 167,567 427,168
Southwest 234,369 82,255 197,098 10,679 1,016,873 402,898 1,944,172
Outside WRCOG 326,013 98,751 1,241,409 108,093 389,492 54,404,000 56,567,758
TOTAL 1,619,412 625,538 3,575,162 321,221 1,810,024 56,660,315 64,611,673
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-3
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
PEAK PERIOD HOME-BASED-OTHER TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 110,735 3,642 21,950 387 16,486 6,055 159,255
Hemet/San Jacinto 8,004 43,231 162 666 2,726 70 54,859
Northwest 20,225 79 221,291 28 2,091 56,821 300,535
Pass Area 1,326 1,697 103 16,564 7 4,939 24,635
Southwest 19,735 3,035 4,593 7 138,861 1,084 167,315
Outside WRCOG 6,136 402 60,940 5,117 10,948 5,978,607 6,062,150
TOTAL 166,161 52,086 309,039 22,769 171,120 6,047,576 6,768,750
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-4
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
PEAK PERIOD HOME-BASED-SCHOOL TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 116,617 17,407 82,092 6,004 49,146 58,568 329,833
Hemet/San Jacinto 20,422 60,529 6,881 9,918 17,117 18,684 133,551
Northwest 61,455 2,779 414,635 2,683 14,253 282,505 778,310
Pass Area 12,768 11,566 8,715 49,680 1,935 47,061 131,725
Southwest 40,694 13,037 27,856 1,225 237,362 49,558 369,732
Outside WRCOG 65,953 13,263 341,047 28,498 87,982 22,327,971 22,864,713
TOTAL 317,908 118,582 881,227 98,008 407,795 22,784,346 24,607,865
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-5
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
PEAK PERIOD NON-HOME-BASED TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 18,096 11,373 40,399 384 3,534 25,445 99,231
Hemet/San Jacinto 2,056 10,293 2,922 220 523 4,304 20,318
Northwest 7,195 2,406 92,914 152 1,007 62,109 165,784
Pass Area 1,747 4,677 3,824 587 80 7,554 18,470
Southwest 14,080 13,775 29,881 293 19,353 65,853 143,236
Outside WRCOG 14,614 12,092 163,514 1,433 3,734 1,866,606 2,061,994
TOTAL 57,788 54,616 333,455 3,070 28,232 2,031,871 2,509,032
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-6
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
PEAK PERIOD HOME-BASED-UNIVERSITY TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 801,662 128,869 640,224 56,860 339,965 988,339 2,955,918
Hemet/San Jacinto 140,692 363,274 109,533 65,159 132,656 415,778 1,227,093
Northwest 340,558 37,798 2,341,566 37,213 141,992 2,394,837 5,293,964
Pass Area 67,550 54,436 80,501 191,165 19,798 353,246 766,697
Southwest 330,176 130,997 414,647 31,788 1,358,749 1,284,306 3,550,663
Outside WRCOG 569,970 187,134 2,517,328 247,784 764,704 97,045,358 101,332,277
TOTAL 2,250,608 902,509 6,103,800 629,968 2,757,864 102,481,863 115,126,612
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-7
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
TOTAL OFF PEAK TRIPS FOR ALL PURPOSES - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 64,053 23,015 164,150 25,429 78,516 519,620 874,784
Hemet/San Jacinto 27,710 20,523 51,954 19,949 40,698 244,713 405,547
Northwest 57,811 15,473 261,251 21,801 56,354 811,368 1,224,059
Pass Area 10,592 6,429 27,063 12,994 8,220 128,530 193,828
Southwest 65,794 29,706 153,862 20,870 157,689 724,854 1,152,774
Outside WRCOG 187,105 76,293 763,815 115,048 322,353 17,962,924 19,427,539
TOTAL 413,065 171,439 1,422,095 216,091 663,831 20,392,010 23,278,531
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-8
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
OFF PEAK HOME-BASED-WORK TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 518,247 66,043 291,090 21,528 180,073 324,734 1,401,715
Hemet/San Jacinto 77,692 230,275 41,945 28,302 64,944 130,834 573,991
Northwest 181,766 15,629 1,296,905 11,001 63,383 1,010,885 2,579,569
Pass Area 35,416 25,064 34,290 99,409 8,287 138,571 341,037
Southwest 181,290 62,892 165,057 8,746 793,860 357,826 1,569,671
Outside WRCOG 262,051 76,387 1,010,627 87,034 296,373 42,030,568 43,763,040
TOTAL 1,256,461 476,289 2,839,914 256,020 1,406,920 43,993,419 50,229,023
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-9
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
OFF PEAK HOME-BASED-OTHER TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 29,899 1,018 5,963 112 4,495 1,879 43,367
Hemet/San Jacinto 2,171 11,723 46 212 743 22 14,915
Northwest 5,315 22 59,984 8 572 16,387 82,287
Pass Area 367 460 31 4,489 2 1,358 6,707
Southwest 5,242 828 1,239 2 37,812 304 45,428
Outside WRCOG 1,679 106 16,999 1,337 2,522 1,608,845 1,631,488
TOTAL 44,671 14,158 84,261 6,159 46,147 1,628,796 1,824,191
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-10
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
OFF PEAK HOME-BASED-SCHOOL TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 171,868 26,165 127,774 9,573 74,861 103,539 513,780
Hemet/San Jacinto 31,023 89,467 11,465 16,561 25,978 33,500 207,994
Northwest 88,808 4,136 620,263 4,317 21,165 472,709 1,211,397
Pass Area 19,327 17,223 13,991 73,960 3,239 74,839 202,580
Southwest 61,789 19,268 45,891 1,951 356,701 84,988 570,589
Outside WRCOG 103,831 20,636 536,313 43,581 141,283 33,374,718 34,220,361
TOTAL 476,647 176,895 1,355,697 149,943 623,228 34,144,292 36,926,701
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-11
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
OFF PEAK NON-HOME-BASED TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 17,594 12,628 51,247 218 2,019 38,566 122,272
Hemet/San Jacinto 2,097 11,286 4,124 136 292 6,709 24,645
Northwest 6,858 2,539 103,163 86 517 83,488 196,652
Pass Area 1,849 5,259 5,127 313 49 9,947 22,544
Southwest 16,062 18,302 48,598 219 12,688 116,334 212,202
Outside WRCOG 15,304 13,712 189,575 784 2,172 2,068,303 2,289,850
TOTAL 59,764 63,727 401,834 1,755 17,738 2,323,347 2,868,164
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-12
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
OFF PEAK HOME-BASED-UNIVERSITY TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 1,886,231 305,013 1,560,174 155,627 834,808 2,660,619 7,402,471
Hemet/San Jacinto 342,975 837,544 299,154 158,370 340,527 1,152,514 3,131,082
Northwest 811,797 100,707 5,424,449 106,702 377,177 5,895,035 12,715,867
Pass Area 154,507 121,047 201,110 421,411 50,814 884,999 1,833,889
Southwest 804,289 319,636 1,050,082 93,323 3,181,580 3,524,801 8,973,711
Outside WRCOG 1,403,634 481,075 6,101,478 651,086 2,010,260 226,762,371 237,409,905
TOTAL 5,403,432 2,165,023 14,636,446 1,586,519 6,795,166 240,880,340 271,466,925
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-13
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
TOTAL DAILY TRIPS FOR ALL PURPOSES - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 229,295 82,007 575,590 91,051 276,409 1,740,397 2,994,749
Hemet/San Jacinto 98,516 74,328 180,712 68,847 143,988 812,107 1,378,498
Northwest 201,151 52,731 935,927 74,986 192,540 2,732,003 4,189,337
Pass Area 36,574 22,095 92,709 47,281 27,201 433,163 659,022
Southwest 231,030 106,243 529,869 70,200 568,071 2,445,955 3,951,368
Outside WRCOG 608,054 245,727 2,541,054 375,209 1,075,753 63,102,754 67,948,550
TOTAL 1,404,620 583,131 4,855,859 727,574 2,283,962 71,266,379 81,121,525
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-14
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
DAILY HOME-BASED-WORK TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Southwest
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 1,192,127 150,772 655,160 47,898 407,857 686,170 3,139,984
Hemet/San Jacinto 178,686 536,686 92,843 61,811 149,158 277,118 1,296,302
Northwest 420,789 36,015 2,976,272 24,442 145,031 2,189,015 5,791,564
Pass Area 80,549 58,070 76,610 228,537 18,300 306,138 768,205
Southwest 415,659 145,147 362,155 19,425 1,810,733 760,724 3,513,843
Outside WRCOG 588,064 175,138 2,252,036 195,127 685,865 96,434,568 100,330,798
TOTAL 2,875,873 1,101,828 6,415,076 577,241 3,216,945 100,653,734 114,840,696
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-15
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
DAILY HOME-BASED-OTHER TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Outside
WRCOG TOTALSouthwest
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 140,634 4,660 27,913 499 20,981 7,934 202,622
Hemet/San Jacinto 10,175 54,954 207 877 3,469 92 69,775
Northwest 25,540 101 281,274 36 2,663 73,208 382,822
Pass Area 1,692 2,157 134 21,053 9 6,297 31,343
Southwest 24,977 3,864 5,832 9 176,673 1,388 212,743
Outside WRCOG 7,814 508 77,939 6,454 13,470 7,587,452 7,693,638
TOTAL 210,832 66,244 393,299 28,928 217,266 7,676,372 8,592,941
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-16
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
DAILY HOME-BASED-SCHOOL TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Outside
WRCOG TOTALSouthwest
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 288,485 43,572 209,866 15,577 124,008 162,106 843,613
Hemet/San Jacinto 51,445 149,996 18,346 26,479 43,095 52,184 341,544
Northwest 150,263 6,915 1,034,898 7,000 35,418 755,213 1,989,708
Pass Area 32,095 28,790 22,706 123,641 5,174 121,900 334,305
Southwest 102,482 32,305 73,748 3,176 594,063 134,546 940,320
Outside WRCOG 169,784 33,899 877,360 72,079 229,264 55,702,689 57,085,075
TOTAL 794,554 295,477 2,236,924 247,951 1,031,023 56,928,638 61,534,566
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-17
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
DAILY NON-HOME-BASED TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Outside
WRCOG TOTALSouthwest
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 35,690 24,001 91,646 601 5,553 64,011 221,503
Hemet/San Jacinto 4,153 21,580 7,046 356 815 11,012 44,963
Northwest 14,054 4,945 196,077 238 1,525 145,596 362,435
Pass Area 3,596 9,936 8,951 900 129 17,502 41,014
Southwest 30,142 32,078 78,478 512 32,040 182,188 355,438
Outside WRCOG 29,918 25,804 353,089 2,217 5,906 3,934,909 4,351,844
TOTAL 117,553 118,344 735,288 4,825 45,970 4,355,218 5,377,197
Based on RivCOM Year 2018 Existing Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-18
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
DAILY HOME-BASED-UNIVERSITY TRIPS ONLY - 2018 EXISTING
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Outside
WRCOG TOTALSouthwest
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 1,799,333 331,707 1,246,839 150,237 725,077 2,074,041 6,327,234
Hemet/San Jacinto 419,876 828,755 285,137 155,667 345,759 1,006,889 3,042,083
Northwest 719,180 87,427 3,652,429 90,736 283,636 3,816,550 8,649,959
Pass Area 166,143 123,928 189,122 408,274 39,950 805,993 1,733,411
Southwest 823,445 350,410 894,926 84,115 3,062,054 3,170,545 8,385,495
Outside WRCOG 1,208,763 420,070 4,001,373 598,622 1,482,553 151,663,404 159,374,786
TOTAL 5,136,740 2,142,297 10,269,827 1,487,652 5,939,029 162,537,422 187,512,968
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-19
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
TOTAL PEAK PERIOD TRIPS FOR ALL PURPOSES - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 373,364 119,251 639,446 100,864 284,454 1,576,209 3,093,588
Hemet/San Jacinto 172,286 134,504 208,376 88,310 169,783 827,421 1,600,680
Northwest 244,964 48,849 905,169 66,860 143,376 2,007,531 3,416,748
Pass Area 69,297 34,601 118,258 72,874 25,101 465,215 785,345
Southwest 346,327 152,164 600,641 69,322 654,211 2,572,563 4,395,228
Outside WRCOG 627,554 220,846 2,057,129 369,322 678,800 52,699,890 56,653,540
TOTAL 1,833,791 710,214 4,529,019 767,551 1,955,725 60,148,829 69,945,130
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-20
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
PEAK PERIOD HOME-BASED-WORK TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 1,062,642 154,854 432,156 38,451 340,614 392,364 2,421,080
Hemet/San Jacinto 190,962 506,337 65,022 49,916 143,277 154,174 1,109,688
Northwest 352,592 31,203 1,941,227 19,896 116,947 1,347,877 3,809,741
Pass Area 73,295 60,143 56,197 230,606 12,927 245,844 679,013
Southwest 365,033 139,169 213,955 13,093 1,806,167 430,821 2,968,236
Outside WRCOG 473,253 165,371 1,354,389 176,377 669,783 64,072,996 66,912,168
TOTAL 2,517,777 1,057,076 4,062,946 528,338 3,089,715 66,644,076 77,899,927
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-21
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
PEAK PERIOD HOME-BASED-OTHER TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 136,895 5,994 23,940 484 20,215 6,298 193,827
Hemet/San Jacinto 13,675 57,088 301 975 4,113 107 76,259
Northwest 23,198 110 237,602 33 2,279 66,566 329,788
Pass Area 1,880 2,406 139 26,717 7 9,600 40,749
Southwest 24,598 3,842 4,731 7 228,422 1,295 262,895
Outside WRCOG 6,723 624 64,150 5,947 16,481 6,271,751 6,365,676
TOTAL 206,969 70,065 330,863 34,163 271,517 6,355,617 7,269,194
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-22
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
PEAK PERIOD HOME-BASED-SCHOOL TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 202,038 35,728 103,488 10,029 74,959 74,079 500,322
Hemet/San Jacinto 40,465 115,618 8,342 16,222 27,829 20,983 229,458
Northwest 89,752 4,817 459,879 3,793 19,949 335,223 913,414
Pass Area 19,244 20,136 9,751 77,216 1,839 73,705 201,892
Southwest 63,376 22,555 29,308 1,251 322,054 43,941 482,484
Outside WRCOG 88,138 21,358 372,582 45,519 113,947 26,519,796 27,161,341
TOTAL 503,012 220,212 983,351 154,031 560,578 27,067,727 29,488,911
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-23
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
PEAK PERIOD NON-HOME-BASED TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 24,394 15,880 47,809 408 4,835 25,090 118,417
Hemet/San Jacinto 2,488 15,208 3,096 245 757 4,204 25,998
Northwest 8,674 2,448 108,552 155 1,085 59,353 180,268
Pass Area 2,428 6,642 4,777 861 76 11,629 26,412
Southwest 24,112 32,680 46,293 442 51,199 121,926 276,652
Outside WRCOG 13,096 11,872 153,123 1,456 3,543 2,098,971 2,282,060
TOTAL 75,191 84,731 363,649 3,568 61,494 2,321,174 2,909,807
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-24
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
PEAK PERIOD HOME-BASED-UNIVERSITY TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 1,318,612 243,507 855,399 90,116 512,253 1,362,381 4,382,268
Hemet/San Jacinto 307,848 620,261 182,200 112,414 232,480 632,480 2,087,683
Northwest 514,466 58,795 2,686,245 50,935 187,731 2,945,148 6,443,318
Pass Area 125,325 101,371 126,342 322,595 27,752 586,766 1,290,151
Southwest 594,702 254,789 612,135 48,790 2,229,187 1,999,442 5,739,044
Outside WRCOG 857,986 292,176 2,897,700 380,089 960,617 114,223,362 119,611,929
TOTAL 3,718,939 1,570,899 7,360,021 1,004,939 4,150,019 121,749,579 139,554,395
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-25
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
TOTAL OFF PEAK TRIPS FOR ALL PURPOSES - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 139,109 48,317 252,879 40,263 116,636 745,260 1,342,464
Hemet/San Jacinto 68,574 47,643 92,129 35,673 67,839 402,851 714,710
Northwest 98,150 23,283 337,214 28,227 65,852 940,673 1,493,399
Pass Area 28,513 15,183 50,763 26,317 12,905 221,065 354,746
Southwest 143,010 60,883 254,955 32,890 244,955 1,155,616 1,892,308
Outside WRCOG 302,064 116,183 938,244 166,464 326,211 21,226,888 23,076,054
TOTAL 779,420 311,492 1,926,184 329,834 834,398 24,692,353 28,873,681
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-26
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
OFF PEAK HOME-BASED-WORK TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 817,753 121,802 362,911 33,093 271,714 415,042 2,022,315
Hemet/San Jacinto 161,868 374,441 65,747 46,266 116,874 172,568 937,763
Northwest 270,238 25,096 1,486,279 16,476 90,978 1,281,165 3,170,231
Pass Area 61,546 47,031 50,231 174,731 11,410 223,207 568,155
Southwest 303,367 111,492 202,017 12,889 1,405,767 465,133 2,500,666
Outside WRCOG 387,066 126,440 1,130,769 140,486 452,722 49,373,980 51,611,462
TOTAL 2,001,838 806,301 3,297,953 423,940 2,349,465 51,931,094 60,810,592
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-27
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
OFF PEAK HOME-BASED-OTHER TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 37,552 1,684 7,015 142 5,504 2,210 54,106
Hemet/San Jacinto 4,077 15,458 110 341 1,168 42 21,196
Northwest 6,276 32 64,909 10 605 20,422 92,254
Pass Area 563 684 47 7,234 2 2,659 11,190
Southwest 6,927 1,090 1,449 3 62,653 584 72,705
Outside WRCOG 2,040 166 19,074 1,704 3,185 1,683,458 1,709,627
TOTAL 57,435 19,114 92,604 9,433 73,117 1,709,376 1,961,079
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-28
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
OFF PEAK HOME-BASED-SCHOOL TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 299,738 55,092 169,871 16,381 115,948 153,204 810,234
Hemet/San Jacinto 70,174 166,706 18,278 29,966 46,159 47,597 378,880
Northwest 131,414 7,633 681,134 6,136 29,764 610,663 1,466,744
Pass Area 31,940 31,225 18,232 113,898 3,385 123,898 322,577
Southwest 104,433 36,376 55,746 2,580 484,258 98,486 781,879
Outside WRCOG 151,333 34,517 620,329 70,600 176,455 39,604,640 40,657,873
TOTAL 789,032 331,549 1,563,590 239,561 855,969 40,638,488 44,418,188
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-29
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
OFF PEAK NON-HOME-BASED TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 24,461 16,612 62,722 237 2,451 46,666 153,148
Hemet/San Jacinto 3,155 16,013 5,936 169 440 9,422 35,134
Northwest 8,389 2,752 116,708 85 532 92,226 220,691
Pass Area 2,763 7,248 7,069 416 50 15,937 33,483
Southwest 36,965 44,949 97,968 427 31,554 279,623 491,486
Outside WRCOG 15,482 14,869 189,285 835 2,045 2,334,396 2,556,912
TOTAL 91,214 102,442 479,690 2,170 37,070 2,778,268 3,490,855
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-30
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
OFF PEAK HOME-BASED-UNIVERSITY TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 3,117,946 575,214 2,102,238 240,353 1,237,329 3,436,422 10,709,502
Hemet/San Jacinto 727,723 1,449,016 467,337 268,082 578,239 1,639,369 5,129,767
Northwest 1,233,645 146,222 6,338,674 141,671 471,367 6,761,699 15,093,278
Pass Area 291,468 225,299 315,464 730,869 67,702 1,392,759 3,023,562
Southwest 1,418,147 605,199 1,507,061 132,904 5,291,241 5,169,987 14,124,539
Outside WRCOG 2,066,749 712,246 6,899,073 978,711 2,443,170 265,886,766 278,986,715
TOTAL 8,855,679 3,713,196 17,629,848 2,492,590 10,089,048 284,287,001 327,067,363
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-31
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
TOTAL DAILY TRIPS FOR ALL PURPOSES - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Southwest Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 512,473 167,568 892,325 141,127 401,091 2,321,469 4,436,052
Hemet/San Jacinto 240,860 182,148 300,505 123,983 237,623 1,230,272 2,315,390
Northwest 343,114 72,132 1,242,383 95,087 209,228 2,948,204 4,910,147
Pass Area 97,810 49,784 169,021 99,191 38,005 686,279 1,140,090
Southwest 489,337 213,047 855,596 102,212 899,166 3,728,179 6,287,536
Outside WRCOG 929,618 337,029 2,995,373 535,786 1,005,010 73,926,778 79,729,594
TOTAL 2,613,211 1,021,707 6,455,203 1,097,385 2,790,123 84,841,182 98,818,811
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-32
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Outside
WRCOG TOTAL
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
DAILY HOME-BASED-WORK TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Southwest
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 1,880,395 276,656 795,067 71,544 612,328 807,406 4,443,395
Hemet/San Jacinto 352,830 880,778 130,769 96,181 260,151 326,742 2,047,451
Northwest 622,829 56,299 3,427,506 36,372 207,925 2,629,041 6,979,972
Pass Area 134,842 107,173 106,427 405,337 24,337 469,052 1,247,168
Southwest 668,400 250,661 415,972 25,982 3,211,934 895,954 5,468,902
Outside WRCOG 860,319 291,810 2,485,158 316,863 1,122,505 113,446,976 118,523,630
TOTAL 4,519,614 1,863,377 7,360,898 952,278 5,439,180 118,575,170 138,710,519
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-33
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
DAILY HOME-BASED-OTHER TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Outside
WRCOG TOTALSouthwest
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 174,447 7,678 30,955 627 25,718 8,507 247,933
Hemet/San Jacinto 17,752 72,546 411 1,316 5,281 149 97,455
Northwest 29,474 142 302,511 43 2,884 86,988 422,042
Pass Area 2,443 3,091 186 33,950 9 12,260 51,939
Southwest 31,524 4,932 6,180 10 291,076 1,879 335,600
Outside WRCOG 8,764 790 83,223 7,651 19,666 7,955,209 8,075,303
TOTAL 264,404 89,179 423,467 43,596 344,634 8,064,992 9,230,272
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-34
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
DAILY HOME-BASED-SCHOOL TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Outside
WRCOG TOTALSouthwest
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 501,776 90,820 273,360 26,410 190,907 227,284 1,310,557
Hemet/San Jacinto 110,639 282,324 26,620 46,188 73,988 68,580 608,338
Northwest 221,166 12,450 1,141,014 9,929 49,713 945,886 2,380,158
Pass Area 51,183 51,361 27,984 191,114 5,224 197,603 524,469
Southwest 167,809 58,931 85,053 3,831 806,312 142,426 1,264,363
Outside WRCOG 239,471 55,876 992,911 116,119 290,402 66,124,436 67,819,215
TOTAL 1,292,044 551,761 2,546,941 393,592 1,416,547 67,706,215 73,907,099
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-35
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
DAILY NON-HOME-BASED TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Outside
WRCOG TOTALSouthwest
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
To
From
Central 48,855 32,492 110,531 645 7,286 71,756 271,565
Hemet/San Jacinto 5,642 31,221 9,033 414 1,197 13,626 61,132
Northwest 17,063 5,200 225,260 240 1,617 151,579 400,959
Pass Area 5,191 13,890 11,846 1,278 126 27,566 59,896
Southwest 61,077 77,629 144,261 870 82,752 401,549 768,138
Outside WRCOG 28,578 26,741 342,408 2,292 5,587 4,433,366 4,838,972
TOTAL 166,406 187,172 843,339 5,738 98,564 5,099,442 6,400,662
Based on RivCOM Year 2045 No-Build Scenario, November 2023
EXHIBIT J-36
VMT BY WRCOG TUMF ZONE
DAILY HOME-BASED-UNIVERSITY TRIPS ONLY - 2045 NO BUILD
Central Hemet/San
Jacinto Northwest Pass Area Outside
WRCOG TOTALSouthwest
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
K-1
Appendix K - Residential Fee Calculation
In general, the fee for the TUMF program is calculated based on the following formula:
Applying this formula, Unit Cost Assumptions for the various eligible TUMF project types
are used to estimate the overall cost to improve the TUMF Network as described in the
TUMF Nexus Study. The resultant network improvement cost is then divided
proportionally between various residential and non-residential development categories
such that each new development type contributes its ‘fair share’ to the program. Any
change in one formula variable has a related impact on the overall TUMF fee, although
it is important to note that the resultant impact to the overall fee is not necessarily
directly proportional to the formula variable change due to the intricacies of the fee
calculation.
The residential fee was calculated by multiplying the estimated TUMF Network
improvements cost attributable to mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of new
development (Section 4.0) by the proportion of all regional trips that are generated by
residential land uses (Section 5.3), and dividing this number by the projected increase in
residential units between 2018 and 2045 (Table 2.3).
To account for the difference in trip generation rates between single-family residential
units and multi-family residential units, the fee value was normalized for each of these
housing types by first multiplying the proposed growth in households between 2018 and
2045 by the existing proportional share of each household type, and then multiplying
the resultant values by the respective trip generation rate as published in the Institute of
Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition, 2021. The respective uniform
fee values are presented in Section 6.1. Exhibit K-1 details the calculation of the
uniform single-family and multi-family residential fees (and non-residential fees).
On September 28, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsome signed Assembly Bill 602
(AB 602) approving several changes to the Mitigation Fee Act, including the additional
of §66016.5 to the California Government Code (CGC). §66016.5(a)(5)(A) states “A
nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing
development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the
development.…” unless certain findings are made. These findings include:
“(i) An explanation as to why square footage is not appropriate metric to calculate
fees imposed on housing development project.
(ii) An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a
reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the
development.
Unit Cost Assumptions x Recommended Network Improvements
Change in Residential and Non-Residential Development
= TUMF
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
K-2
(iii) That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or
otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate
fees.”
To address these provisions of AB 602, WRCOG analyzed the trip generation
characteristics of both single-family and multi-family housing units of various sizes to
determine whether there was a variation in trip generation rates based on housing unit
size substantiating that TUMF should be imposed based on the square footage of the
respective housing type. The findings of the analyses for single-family and multi-family,
respectively, were summarized in technical memoranda that are included as Exhibit K-
2 for single-family residential units, and Exhibit K-3 for multi-family residential units.
The findings of the analysis of single-family residential units, as presented in Exhibit K-2,
indicates that the trip generation rates for these units do vary by housing size, especially
for units of 2,500 square feet or less. The findings also noted that variations in trip
generation characteristics tended to be more closely correlated to total household
population, number of children and number of workers.
Figure 9 in Exhibit K-2 illustrates Daily Vehicle Trips per Median Square Footage for
Single-Family housing units. The figure generally reflects a linear increase in trip
generation rate as housing size increases until the unit size reaches between 2,500 and
2,900 square feet, after which the trip generation rate stabilizes at approximately 10 to
12 trips per day. The figure also indicates some clustering of trip generation rates for
housing units below 1,800 square feet, and similarly for housing units between 1,800 and
2,300 square feet. Based on these findings, WRCOG has determined that the fee for
single-family residential units should be adjusted in four tiers to correlate to the trip
generation characteristics associated with various ranges of single-family housing sizes
to demonstrate compliance with AB 602.
To develop these tiers, WRCOG reviewed all single-family permits for which TUMF was
assessed in the 2022/2023 Fiscal Year, which totaled 3,875 permits. These permit data
indicated the square footage for these units ranged from 900 square feet to over 10,000
square feet with the majority of the units being between 1,800 square feet and 3,000
square feet. According to these data, the average square footage of these units was
2,300 square feet. WRCOG then examined the permit distribution to determine how
units of various sizes should be grouped for the purposes of assessing TUMF to account
for variations in the trip generation rates for single-family residential units of different
sizes. An analysis of the different home sizes determined that it would be reasonable to
stratify the home sizes into four tiers as presented in Table K.1. As indicated in Table K.1,
approximately ½ of all single-family permits fall into Tier 1 and Tier 2 while the remaining
½ fall into Tier 3 and Tier 4.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
K-3
Table K.1 – Single-Family Residential Unit Size Distribution in Western Riverside County
(based on FY 2022/2023 Single-Family Residential Unit Permits Issued in Western Riverside County)
Home Size Range (square feet) Number of Permits Percentage of Permits
Less than or equal to 1,800 451 12%
1,801 to 2,300 1,409 36%
2,301 to 2,700 1,121 29%
More than 2,700 894 23%
Total 3,875 100%
The tiers reflecting the adjustments to the standard uniform single-family residential fee
per dwelling unit (as calculated in Table 6.1) for differing ranges of single-family unit sizes
are summarized in Table K.2. Consistent with §66016.5(a)(5)(A), the adjustments to the
standard single-family residential fee for each tier is roughly proportional to the relative
trip generation rates for the units of varying sizes described in each tier. Furthermore,
the assessment of the single-family residential fee at the adjusted levels would result in a
roughly proportional fee collection for all single-family residential units compared to the
assessment of a standard uniform fee across all single-family residential units. This
ensures that new single-family residential units continue to contribute their fair share
towards the cost of mitigating the cumulative regional impact of new development on
the regional transportation system thereby maintaining the program nexus outlined in
this document and represented by the fee schedule presented in Table 7.1.
Table K.2 – Single-Family Residential Fee Adjustments by Unit Size
Adjustment Tier Housing Unit Size Range (in square feet) Standard Fee Adjustment
Tier 1 Less than or equal to 1,800 80%
Tier 2 1,801 to 2,300 90%
Tier 3 2,301 to 2,700 100%
Tier 4 More than 2,700 125%
Exhibit K-3 presents the findings for multi-family housing units. For multi-family residential
units, the results indicate little variation in trip generation rates across the range of multi-
family residential unit sizes prompting WRCOG to determine that the fee for multi-family
residential units would be most appropriately imposed uniformly across all multi-family
dwelling units, regardless of their size.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT K-1 Western Riverside County TUMF Estimate
by Percent of TUMF Share Weighted by PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rate
Based on Needed Improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials
2018 2045 Change
Single Family Residential 397,407 564,898 167,491 0.99 165,816 78.6%$15,476
Multi Family Residential 157,166 247,501 90,335 0.50 45,168 21.4%$7,816
Total 554,573 812,399 257,826 210,984 100.0%
2018 2045 Change
Industrial 169,334 245,915 76,581 0.6 45,949 15.1% 61,489,565 $2.33
Retail 73,814 86,929 13,115 1.8 23,607 7.8%6,557,500 $11.21
Service 308,703 482,958 174,255 1.2 209,106 68.8% 66,735,957 $9.76
Government/Public Sector 18,569 30,640 12,071 2.1 25,349 8.3%3,420,665 $23.07
Total 570,420 846,442 276,022 304,011 100.0% 138,203,688
Notes:
- trip generation rates based on ITE Trip Generation 11th Edition (2021) rates for weekday PM peak hour by generator trip ends
- residential formula: [(TUMF cost share)(residential share of VMT) / (change in housing units)] * (percentage of trip change)
- non-residential formula: [(TUMF cost share)(non-residential share of VMT) / (change in SF of GFA)] * (percentage of trip change)
Calculation Inputs:
residential share of daily VMT 77.7%
non-residential share of daily VMT 22.3%
total regional mitigation cost $5,283,909,000
existing obligated improvement funding $382,886,000
unfunded existing need cost $646,931,000
MAX TUMF VALUE $4,244,608,000
MAX TUMF SHARE 80.3%
Residential Value $3,298,060,000
Non-Residential Value $946,548,000
PM Peak Hour Trip
Generation Rate
Change in SF of
GFA
PM Peak Hour Trip
ChangeResidential
Non-Residential
Employees
Dwelling Units PM Peak Hour Trip
Generation Rate Fee/DU
Percentage of PM
Peak Hour Trip
Change
PM Peak Hour Trip Change
Percentage of PM
Peak Hour Trip
Change
Fee/SF of GFA
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
EXHIBIT K-2
[Single-Family] Residential Trip Generation Memorandum
Fehr & Peers, November 16, 2022
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Choose an item.
Memorandum
Date: November 16, 2022
To: Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG
From: Mike Wallace, Eleanor Hunts, and Jason Pack – Fehr & Peers
Subject: WRCOG Residential Trip Generation
Contract No. 2022-65-1400-004 / Task Order No. 2022-65-1400-004-003
OC22- 0864
This memo summarizes the goals, data and analysis, key findings, and recommendations relating
to the evaluation of vehicle trip generation and residential development characteristics.
Specifically, this memo is intended to inform the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF)
guidelines on the relationship between residential trip generation and home size (square footage)
as prescribed in California Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602). This draft memo will be followed-up with a
phone call to discuss the recommendations and the memo will be revised and finalized based on
the call.
Key Findings
Questions answered through the analysis and the findings are listed below.
• Is home size a key predictor of residential vehicle trip generation? Yes, for homes of
2,500 square feet or less the trips increase with the larger home size. After 2,500
square feet the number of trips stay constant with home size, all else being equal.
• Are there other characteristics that have a higher predictive relationship than home size?
Yes, the trip generation increases with the total household population, average
number of children, and average number workers. Home size accounts for
approximately 50% of the increase in home size for homes less than 2,500 square
feet with the remaining 50% explained by multiple factors of the people within the
home.
• Does the location (i.e. TUMF zone) change the relationship of home size or the other
characteristics? No, the home location may influence the size, number of people, or
household income, and/or the distance the trips travel, but does not influence the
trips generated.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022
Page 2 of 13
• Are there recommended changes to the TUMF based on the findings? If so, what is the
potential impact to the TUMF collection and home owners? Yes, it is recommended that
smaller homes pay a fee based on home size. The appropriate fee should be
evaluated by the TUMF fee consultant to determine the potential impact to fee
collected compared to the current fee expectation. Smaller homes paying less could
potentially make home ownership less expensive overall compared to larger homes.
Data Collection
This section describes the data that were used to evaluate the trip generation. Specifically, the
identification and selection of study areas, method for obtaining and results of the travel activity,
and collection of residential characteristics.
Study Area Selection
To determine the home characteristics that might influence trip generation, representative
residential neighborhoods in each of the TUMF zones were identified. The criteria used for
selecting neighborhoods included the following:
• Residential land use could be isolated from other uses
• Minimal cut through traffic
• As close to Census Blocks or Block Groups as possible to obtain demographic information
• Minimal construction activity that would change the number of units
• Diverse home size, household income
Based on local knowledge, aerial photos, Census geography, and home information from Zillow,
WRCOG staff identified a preliminary list of potential study locations in each TUMF zone. Through
discussions and review of each location, Fehr & Peers narrowed down the list of study locations to
23 neighborhoods, shown on Figure 1.
Travel Activity
StreetLight Data from smart phones were collected at 23 residential neighborhoods shown on
Figure 1 were collected for trips that started or ended within each neighborhood. This method
excluded trips that cut through the neighborhood. To avoid holidays, vacations, and to reflect
travel when school is in session, data from March 1st through April 30th and September 1st through
October 31st for all weekdays in 2019 were collected to represent the average vehicle trips per day
for all homes within each study area.
Since StreetLight Data are based on location-based services (LBS) derived from cellular phone
applications, 48-hour traffic counts were conducted at eight of the 23 study area locations as a
point of comparison. The eight representative count locations were selected to have at least one
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022
Page 3 of 13
location in each TUMF zone, minimize the number of roadways accessing the land use, and to
allow the most accurate representation of trips associated with the residential homes without
capturing cut through traffic. The eight locations where 48-hour counts were collected are shown
on Figure 2.
As shown on Figure 3, the 48-hour traffic count variation from day to day and the StreetLight
Data average are very similar, giving confidence that the StreetLight Data for all study areas would
be representative.
Residential Characteristics
The number of homes and characteristics for the homes within each study area were obtained
from multiple sources, as summarized in Table 1. To identify outliers and the range of values for
each variable that would be used to estimate the trip generation, plots of each study location by
TUMF zone were developed and are summarized below with reference to the appropriate figure.
• Figure 4 – Median Square Footage: good distribution across study areas and within
each TUMF zone
• Figure 5 – Average Persons per Household: good distribution across study areas and
within each TUMF zone
• Figure 6 – Average Children per Household: good distribution across study areas and
within each TUMF zone, including one study area that has very high children per
household and another study area that has very low children per household
• Figure 7 – Average Workers per Household: good distribution across study areas and
within each TUMF zone
• Figure 8 – Median Cost per Square Foot: good distribution across study areas and
within each TUMF zone
Based on the review of each variable, the range across the study areas and within each TUMF
zone are appropriate for use in the trip generation analysis.
Trip Generation Results
The StreetLight Data daily vehicle trips were used to visually display the relationship of each home
characteristic for each study area and within each TUMF zone. The appropriate figure number and
conclusion for the relationship are listed below.
• Figure 9 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Median Square Footage: slight increase in vehicle
trips as median square footage increases
• Figure 10 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Average Persons per Household: slight increase in
vehicle trips as total number of people per household increases
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022
Page 4 of 13
• Figure 11 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Average Children per Household: slight increase in
vehicle trips as average number of children per household increases
• Figure 12 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Average Workers per Household: slight increase in
vehicle trips as average number of workers per household increases
• Figure 13 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Median Cost per Square Foot: no clear relationship
between average number of workers and trip generation
In addition to visual representations of the data, statistical analysis was performed to obtain the
correlation between the variables to daily vehicle trips and to determine the regression equations.
Figure 16 – Correlation Matrix for All Variables: the correlation values in the green box for
average and median home size of 0.7 indicate a strong positive correlation and mean as home
size increases the number of trips increase. The correlation value of 0.7 results in an R-square of
0.49, meaning nearly half of the increase in trip generation is related to home size.
Based on Figures 10 and 11, the relationship between trip generation appeared to be linear, with
the relationship possibly changing around 2,500 square feet. The linear regression analysis of
average home size was performed for all home sizes, homes 2,500 square feet or smaller, and
homes larger than 2,500 square feet. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 2. The
results show for home sizes of 2,500 square feet or less, the influence of the home size
(represented by the coefficient) is nearly double that when all home sizes are included in the
regression. The nearly zero coefficient and very high constant for the regression of home sizes
above 2.500 square feet indicate that the trip generation is nearly constant for homes above 2,500
square feet.
Recommendations and Next Steps
Although home characteristics other than square footage have a slight increase in trip generation,
the ability to forecast or control all of the characteristics other than home square footage is very
difficult. Based on the results of trip generation and discussions with WRCOG regarding the
feasible size of homes being constructed in the region, WRCOG will work with the TUMF fee
consultant to identify and recommend appropriate fee adjustments based on square footage.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
BLM
Cleveland NF
San JacintoWildlifeArea
ANAHEIM
BANNING
BEAUMONT
CALIMESA
CANYON LAKE
CHINO
CHINO
HILLS
CORONA
EASTVALE
HEMET
IRVINE
JURUPA VALLEY
LAGUNA HILLS
LAGUNA NIGUEL
LAKE ELSINORELAKE FOREST
MENIFEE
MISSION
VIEJO
MORENO VALLEY
MURRIETA
NORCO
ONTARIO
PERRIS
RANCHO SANTA
MARGARITA
RIVERSIDE
SAN JACINTO
WILDOMAR
YORBA LINDA
·243
·241
·91
·71
·83
·74
·60
·79
%&215
!"5
!"10
!"15
1
2
3 45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21 22
23
20
StreetLight Data Collection Locations
Study Location by TUMF Zone
Central
Hemet/San Jacinto
Northwest
Pass
Southwest
City Boundaries
Figure 1
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
BLM
Cleveland NF
San JacintoWildlifeArea
ANAHEIM
BANNING
BEAUMONT
CALIMESA
CANYON LAKE
CHINO
CHINO
HILLS
CORONA
EASTVALE
HEMET
IRVINE
JURUPA VALLEY
LAGUNA HILLS
LAGUNA NIGUEL
LAKE ELSINORELAKE FOREST
MENIFEE
MISSION
VIEJO
MORENO VALLEY
MURRIETA
NORCO
ONTARIO
PERRIS
RANCHO SANTA
MARGARITA
RIVERSIDE
SAN JACINTO
WILDOMAR
YORBA LINDA
·243
·241
·91
·71
·83
·74
·60
·79
%&215
!"5
!"10
!"15
1 6
11
14
15
18
23
20
Traffic Count Data Collection Locations
Study Location by TUMF Zone
Central
Hemet/San Jacinto
Northwest
Pass
Southwest
City Boundaries
Figure 2
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022
Page 7 of 13
Figure 3 – Comparison of Individual Traffic Counts and StreetLight Data Average
Note: Red and green are the two days of manual count collection and blue are the StreetLight Data average. The BG number corresponds to the number on Figure 2.
Figure 4 – Median Square Footage
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022
Page 8 of 13
Figure 5 – Average Persons per Household
Figure 6 – Average Children per Household
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022
Page 9 of 13
Figure 7 – Average Workers per Household
Figure 8 – Median Cost per Square Foot
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022
Page 10 of 13
Figure 9 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Median Square Footage
Figure 10 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Average Persons per Household
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022
Page 11 of 13
Figure 11 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Average Children per Household
Figure 12 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Average Workers per Household
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022
Page 12 of 13
Figure 13 – Daily Vehicle Trips per Median Cost per Square Foot
Figure 14 – Correlation Matrix for All Variables
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Suzanne Peterson, Christopher Gray, and Chris Tzeng – WRCOG November 16, 2022
Page 13 of 13
Table 1: Residential Home Data and Sources
Value Source
Median Home Size Zillow
Average Home Rooms Zillow
Average Household Population ACS 5 year and 1 year
Average Number of Children ACS 5 year and 1 year
Average Number of Workers ACS 5 year and 1 year
TUMF Zone WRCOG
Average Household Income ACS 5 year and 1 year
Table 2: Daily Total Vehicle Trip Regression Equation Summary
Home Size Variable Coefficient Constant R-Squared
All home sizes
Median Home Size (KSF) 2.26 4.22 0.507
Homes 2.5 KSF or smaller
Median Home Size (KSF) 4.11 1.22 0.553
Homes over 2.5 KSF
Median Home Size (KSF) -0.3 11.57 0.007
Notes: KSF= Thousand Square Feet
Regression Equations All home sizes. Daily total vehicle trips = 2.26 * Median Home Size in Thousand Square Feet + 4.22 Homes l 2.50 thousand square feet or less. Daily total vehicle trips = 4.11 * Median Home Size in Thousand Square Feet + 1.22
Homes more than 2.50 thousand square feet. Daily total vehicle trips = -0.3 * Median Home Size in Thousand Square Feet + 11.57
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
EXHIBIT K-3
Multi-Family Residential Counts and Trip Generation Memorandum
Fehr & Peers, May 12, 2023
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
3750 University Avenue | Suite 225 | Riverside, CA 92501 | (951) 274-4800 | Fax (951) 684-4324
www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: May 12, 2023
To: Christopher Gray - WRCOG
Chris Tzeng – WRCOG
From: Jason D. Pack, P.E.
Delia Votsch, P.E.
Raymond Poss
Subject: DRAFT TUMF Multifamily Residential Counts and Trip Generation
Task Order No. 2022-65-1400-004-007
OC23-0955
This memorandum summarizes the goals, data collection and analyses, key findings, and
recommendations regarding the evaluation of multifamily development characteristics and trip
generation. This memo is intended to inform the Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) guidelines on the relationship between
multifamily trip generation, number of bedrooms per dwelling unit, and average size of dwelling
unit.
Key Findings
Questions answered through the data analyses and findings are listed below.
Are the size of the dwelling unit or number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit key predictors
of residential multifamily trip generation? No, the size of dwelling unit nor the number
of bedrooms in a dwelling unit are key predicters of trip generation.
Are there other characteristics that have a higher predictive relationship than the number
of dwelling units? No, the number of dwelling units has the highest predictive
relationship.
Are there recommended changes to the TUMF program or fee calculations based on the
findings? If so, what is the potential impact to the TUMF collection process and to
developers? No, it is not recommended that TUMF be updated from basing
multifamily development fees on number of dwelling units.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023
Page 2 of 14
Background
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) provides local roadway funding in part
through collection of fees through the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program as
part of new developments. These fees vary based on the level of impact the new development will
have on traffic as determined by the characteristics of the development. The impact fee for
multifamily residential developments is currently determined by the number of dwelling units
(DUs).
As required by new state legislature (AB-602), agencies are required to account for the size of the
dwelling unit when developing impact fees. As such, Fehr & Peers was contracted to evaluate the
relationship between trips generated by multifamily apartment complexes to determine if
attributes other than number of dwelling units, including number bedrooms per dwelling unit and
average size of dwelling unit, significantly affect trip generation.
Data Collection
This section describes the data used to evaluate multifamily trip generation, including the
selection of locations and methods for collecting trip data, apartment characteristics, and regional
Census data.
Study Selection Area
To evaluate the effect of dwelling unit size and number of dwelling unit bedrooms on multifamily
trip generation, the following criteria were used to select the apartment complexes within
Western Riverside County:
Minimum of one complex per TUMF Zone (five zones total)
Complexes not within a Transit Priority Area (TPA)
Complexes not near a college or university
Through discussions and review of each location with WRCOG, Fehr & Peers narrowed the study
locations to 12 multifamily apartment complexes as shown on Figure 1.
Travel Activity
Trips were observed at each of the 12 complexes by collecting vehicle counts during typical
weekdays at each driveway over a three-day period. Trip observations for each complex were
averaged over the three-day period and summarized below in Table 1 for Daily, AM Peak Period,
and PM Peak Period counts. Raw data counts taken over the three-day period can be found
Appendix A.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
WRCOG TUMF Multifamily Trip Generation Study Sites
!Study Locations
TUMF Zone Boundary
Figure 1
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023
Page 4 of 14
Table 1: Multifamily Complex Trip Observations
Study
Site # Location Name
Daily Trips AM Peak PM Peak
Trips % In % Out Trip
Rate In % Out % Trip
Rate In % Out %
1 Oakwood
Apartments 2,089 50% 50% 168 40% 60% 170 56% 44%
2 Springbrook Park
Apartments 841 50% 50% 68 34% 66% 69 58% 42%
3 Vista Springs
Apartments 1,117 49% 51% 106 36% 64% 82 55% 45%
4
Vesada
Apartment
Homes
1,625 50% 50% 126 35% 65% 126 62% 38%
5 Morning Ridge
Apartments 1,130 51% 49% 88 30% 70% 102 59% 41%
6 Stonegate
Apartments 952 56% 44% 67 42% 58% 81 64% 36%
7
River's Edge
Apartment
Homes
1,045 50% 50% 93 34% 66% 91 57% 43%
8 Mayberry Colony
Apartments 616 50% 50% 49 39% 61% 54 52% 48%
9 Summit Ridge
Apartments 777 50% 50% 67 39% 61% 57 54% 46%
10 Riverdale
Apartments 737 50% 50% 65 32% 68% 67 57% 43%
11
Parkridge
Meadows
Apartments
744 50% 50% 58 34% 66% 54 63% 37%
12 Hunt Club
Apartments 1,422 51% 49% 143 36% 64% 106 60% 40%
Source: Fehr & Peers (2023)
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023
Page 5 of 14
Residential Characteristics
Apartment characteristics, listed below, were obtained from a variety of sources, including
conversations with apartment leasing agents, property webpages, Census data, Zillow.com, and
the Assessor’s Office of Riverside County web page.
Number of dwelling units
Number of apartment styles (i.e., number of one-bedroom units, two-bedroom units, etc.)
Average size (square footage) of dwelling units
Average number of bedrooms per dwelling unit
Median monthly household income by Census Tract
Average number of persons per household by Census Tract
Proximity to nearest public school
The average size of each dwelling unit was calculated by dividing the total size of all combined
dwelling units by the total number of dwelling units. Similarly, the average number of bedrooms
per dwelling unit were calculated by dividing the total number of bedrooms by the number of
dwelling units. These apartment characteristics are shown below in Table 2. Specific information
related to each apartment complex are provided in Appendix B.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023
Page 6 of 14
Table 2: Apartment Characteristics
Study
Site # Location Name # of
DUs
Average
Size of DU
(Sq. Ft.)
Average
Number of
Bedrooms
Median
Monthly
Household
Income
(Dollars)
Average #
of Persons
per
Household
Proximity
to
Nearest
School
(Mi)
1 Oakwood
Apartments 241 1,040 3.0 $65,240 3.92 0.2
2 Springbrook Park
Apartments 112 955 2.0 $77,148 3.6 0.5
3 Vista Springs
Apartments 212 822 1.5 $74,333 3.3 0.7
4 Vesada Apartment
Homes 261 938 1.7 $79,199 4.53 1.1
5 Morning Ridge
Apartments 200 850 1.6 $63,279 2.73 0.6
6 Stonegate
Apartments 160 802 1.5 $68,250 3.14 0.7
7 River's Edge
Apartment Homes 184 918 1.5 $78,222 3.74 0.4
8 Mayberry Colony
Apartments 89 896 1.6 $51,653 3.71 0.7
9 Summit Ridge
Apartments 80 529 2.5 $43,100 3.47 0.3
10 Riverdale
Apartments 96 1,015 2.6 $87,532 4.33 0.3
11
Parkridge
Meadows
Apartments
88 771 2.0 $74,886 3.53 0.1
12 Hunt Club
Apartments 203 962 2.0 $58,200 4.5 0.8
Sources: Fehr & Peers (2023), U.S. Census Bureau 5-Year American Community Survey (2016-2021), Zillow.com (2023),
Riverside County Assessor (2023)
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023
Page 7 of 14
Trip Generation Analysis
Using the data described above, a statistical analysis, including a regression and correlation
assessment, was performed to evaluate if a statistically significant relationship exists between
multifamily trip generation and the following variables to determine if an update to the
development fee calculation was justified.
Number of dwelling units
Average size of dwelling units
Average number of bedrooms per dwelling unit
Median monthly income
Average number of persons per household
Proximity to nearest public school
Correlation Analysis
A correlation analysis was also performed to determine if a one-to-one relationship exists
between daily trip generation and an apartment characteristic listed above. Figure 2, below,
shows the results of the correlation analysis, with darker green cells representing a stronger,
positive correlation.
The correlation analysis indicates that daily trip generation has a strong, positive correlation
with the number of dwelling units and a moderate, positive correlation with average size of
dwelling unit. All other variables are indicated to have a weak or very weak positive correlation
with trip generation.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023
Page 8 of 14
Figure 2: Trip Generation Correlation Matrix
Total
Vehicles
# of
DUs
Average #
of
Bedrooms
per DU
Average
DU Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Median
Monthly
Income
Average
Household
Size
Proximity
to
Nearest
School
Total
Vehicles 1.00 0.87 0.29 0.46 0.06 0.34 0.21
# of DUs 0.87 1.00 -0.17 0.43 0.20 0.18 0.51
Average #
of
Bedrooms
per DU
0.29 -0.17 1.00 0.13 -0.09 0.36 -0.60
Average
DU Size
(Sq. Ft.)
0.46 0.43 0.13 1.00 0.55 0.51 0.16
Median
Monthly
Income
0.06 0.20 -0.09 0.55 1.00 0.25 -0.02
Average
Household
Size
0.34 0.18 0.36 0.51 0.25 1.00 0.21
Proximity
to Nearest
School
0.21 0.51 -0.60 0.16 -0.02 0.21 1.00
Source: Fehr & Peers (2023)
Regression Analysis
An ordinary least squares regression at a 95% confidence interval was performed on the above
variables against daily trip generation to screen out variables that yielded statistically insignificant
results. The results of the first regression are shown in Table 3.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023
Page 9 of 14
Table 3: Regression Results
Variable P-Value1 Statistically Significant
Number of dwelling units <0.05 Yes
Average size (square footage) of
dwelling units
>0.05 No
Average number of bedrooms per
dwelling unit
<0.05 Yes
Median monthly household
income
>0.05 No
Average number of persons per
household
>0.05 No
Proximity to nearest public school >0.05 No
Source: Fehr & Peers (2023)
1. P-Values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant. P-Values > 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant.
A subsequent regression was run with the least statistically significant (highest P-value) variable
removed. This process was repeated until all remaining variables yielded statistically significant P-
values (less than 0.05), resulting in the number of dwelling units and average size of dwelling unit
as the remaining variables. The P-Values for these variables are shown below in Table 4.
Table 4: Filtered Regression Results
Variable P-Value1 Statistically Significant
Number of dwelling units 4.8x10-07 Yes
Average size (square footage) of
dwelling units
0.0002 Yes
Source: Fehr & Peers (2023)
1. P-Values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant. P-Values > 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant.
The regression analysis indicates that number of dwelling units and average size of dwelling
unit are statistically significant predictors of multifamily trip generation.
To validate these results, a forward stepwise regression was also completed. A forward stepwise
regression is completed by beginning with no variables in the model, and then adding them one
at a time based on which has the smallest p-value when tested one at a time. This isolates any
possible relationships between the variables and further helps confirm if the vehicle trip rate has a
statistically valid correlation to the variables tested.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023
Page 10 of 14
Table 5: Forward Stepwise Regression Results
Variable Relationship Rank1 P-Value2 Statistically
Significant
Average size (square footage) of dwelling units 4 0.377 Yes
Average number of bedrooms per dwelling unit 1 0.0008 No
Median monthly household income 3 0.249 Yes
Average number of persons per household 5 0.509 Yes
Proximity to nearest public school 2 0.0239 No
Source: Fehr & Peers (2023)
1. Relationship rank indicates which variable has the strongest correlation with daily vehicle trip rate.
2. P-Values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant. P-Values > 0.05 are considered statistically insignificant.
As noted in Table 5, the variables with the strongest relationship to daily vehicle trip rate (number
of bedrooms and distance to nearest school) are not statistically significant.
Trip Generation Results
In both the regression and correlation analyses, the number of dwelling units was found to be the
strongest predictor of daily trip generation. All other variables had positive but weaker
correlations to daily trip generation, and none were found to be statistically significant predictors
of multifamily daily trip generation under both regression analyses.
Table 6: Summary of Trip Generation Results
Variable Overall Relationship
Ranking1
Statistically Significant
Filtered Regression Forward Regression
Number of Dwelling Units 1 Yes Yes
Average number of bedrooms
per dwelling unit 2 Yes No
Proximity to nearest public school 3 No No
Average size (square footage) of
dwelling units 4 No Yes
Average number of persons per
household 5 No Yes
Median monthly household
income 6 No Yes
Source: Fehr & Peers (2023)
1. Overall relationship rank indicates which variable has the strongest relationship with daily vehicle trip rate under
the correlation and forward stepwise regression analyses.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 12, 2023
Page 11 of 14
Recommendations and Next Steps
The results of this statistical analysis indicate that the best predictor of trip generation for
multifamily apartment complexes in Western Riverside County is the number of dwelling units
(the current basis for development fee calculation). Although other variables showed a positive
correlation with trip generation, none yielded as strong a relationship. Based on this statistical
analysis, it is not recommended that these other variables be incorporated into the TUMF
program.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 2, 2023
Page 11 of 13
Appendix A: Three-Day Trip
Observations
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS79 Southern Dwy east of Perris.
AM PM
TIME12345TOTALTime 12345TOTAL
0:00 100001 12:00 100001
0:15 000000 12:15 000000
0:30 100001 12:30 101002
0:45 000000 12:45 010001
1:00 100001 13:00 000000
1:15 000000 13:15 000000
1:30 100001 13:30 000000
1:45 000000 13:45 200002
2:00 000000 14:00 000000
2:15 000000 14:15 000000
2:30 000000 14:30 000000
2:45 000000 14:45 000000
3:00 000000 15:00 100001
3:15 000000 15:15 020002
3:30 100001 15:30 220004
3:45 000000 15:45 200002
4:00 000000 16:00 100001
4:15 000000 16:15 200002
4:30 000000 16:30 100001
4:45 000000 16:45 000000
5:00 000000 17:00 200002
5:15 100001 17:15 000000
5:30 000000 17:30 100001
5:45 000000 17:45 100001
6:00 100001 18:00 000000
6:15 000000 18:15 200002
6:30 000000 18:30 100001
6:45 000000 18:45 000000
7:00 100001 19:00 310004
7:15 030003 19:15 000000
7:30 000000 19:30 000000
7:45 000000 19:45 100001
8:00 000000 20:00 000000
8:15 000000 20:15 100001
8:30 000000 20:30 000000
8:45 000000 20:45 000000
9:00 000000 21:00 000000
9:15 200002 21:15 100001
9:30 210003 21:30 100001
9:45 000000 21:45 000000
10:00 110002 22:00 100001
10:15 000000 22:15 000000
10:30 000000 22:30 100001
10:45 100001 22:45 000000
11:00 100001 23:00 000000
11:15 100001 23:15 000000
11:30 000000 23:30 000000
11:45 100001 23:45 000000
TOTAL 17500022TOTAL 29610036
AM PEAK HOUR 9:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 7 AM PEAK VOLUME 9
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 46 11 1 0 0 58
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 79.3% 19.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 1 3 0 0 0 4
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 5 0 0 0 0 5
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 1 - Oakwood Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS79 Southern Dwy east of Perris.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 100001 12:00 100001
0:15 000000 12:15 000000
0:30 100001 12:30 101002
0:45 000000 12:45 000000
1:00 100001 13:00 010001
1:15 000000 13:15 000000
1:30 100001 13:30 000000
1:45 000000 13:45 200002
2:00 000000 14:00 000000
2:15 000000 14:15 000000
2:30 000000 14:30 000000
2:45 000000 14:45 000000
3:00 000000 15:00 100001
3:15 000000 15:15 020002
3:30 000000 15:30 110002
3:45 100001 15:45 310004
4:00 000000 16:00 100001
4:15 000000 16:15 300003
4:30 000000 16:30 100001
4:45 000000 16:45 000000
5:00 100001 17:00 200002
5:15 100001 17:15 000000
5:30 000000 17:30 100001
5:45 000000 17:45 100001
6:00 100001 18:00 100001
6:15 000000 18:15 100001
6:30 000000 18:30 300003
6:45 000000 18:45 000000
7:00 100001 19:00 210003
7:15 030003 19:15 100001
7:30 000000 19:30 000000
7:45 000000 19:45 100001
8:00 000000 20:00 000000
8:15 000000 20:15 100001
8:30 000000 20:30 000000
8:45 000000 20:45 000000
9:00 000000 21:00 000000
9:15 200002 21:15 100001
9:30 210003 21:30 000000
9:45 000000 21:45 100001
10:00 110002 22:00 100001
10:15 000000 22:15 000000
10:30 000000 22:30 100001
10:45 200002 22:45 000000
11:00 100001 23:00 000000
11:15 000000 23:15 000000
11:30 100001 23:30 000000
11:45 100001 23:45 000000
TOTAL 19500024TOTAL 32610039
AM PEAK HOUR 9:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 7 AM PEAK VOLUME 10
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 51 11 1 0 0 63
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 81.0% 17.5% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 1 3 0 0 0 4
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 6 0 0 0 0 6
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 1 - Oakwood Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS80 Northern Dwy east of Perris.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 900009 12:00 35000035
0:15 600006 12:15 42100043
0:30 20000020 12:30 36110038
0:45 12000012 12:45 58000058
1:00 16000016 13:00 44000044
1:15 500005 13:15 39100040
1:30 500005 13:30 38000038
1:45 700007 13:45 55000055
2:00 700007 14:00 44000044
2:15 200002 14:15 65000065
2:30 200002 14:30 51000051
2:45 400004 14:45 63000063
3:00 100001 15:00 53000053
3:15 200002 15:15 64200066
3:30 500005 15:30 66200068
3:45 000000 15:45 75100076
4:00 600006 16:00 73000073
4:15 900009 16:15 67000067
4:30 100001 16:30 62000062
4:45 200002 16:45 80000080
5:00 800008 17:00 48200050
5:15 700007 17:15 68000068
5:30 500005 17:30 53000053
5:45 11000011 17:45 60000060
6:00 900009 18:00 79000079
6:15 11000011 18:15 70000070
6:30 800008 18:30 60000060
6:45 13000013 18:45 54000054
7:00 10000010 19:00 53000053
7:15 29000029 19:15 43000043
7:30 48000048 19:30 38000038
7:45 70000070 19:45 35000035
8:00 52000052 20:00 48000048
8:15 27000027 20:15 38000038
8:30 52000052 20:30 38000038
8:45 36010037 20:45 32000032
9:00 21100022 21:00 47000047
9:15 19100020 21:15 36000036
9:30 22000022 21:30 35000035
9:45 29100030 21:45 25000025
10:00 28100029 22:00 35000035
10:15 24000024 22:15 24000024
10:30 24000024 22:30 23000023
10:45 35000035 22:45 21000021
11:00 31000031 23:00 16000016
11:15 16000016 23:15 30000030
11:30 20000020 23:30 10000010
11:45 29300032 23:45 17000017
TOTAL 8157100823TOTAL 2,246 10 1 0 0 2,257
AM PEAK HOUR 7:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 201 AM PEAK VOLUME 284
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 3,061 17 2 0 0 3,080
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.4% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 201 0 0 0 0 201
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 282 0 0 0 0 282
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 1 - Oakwood Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS80 Northern Dwy east of Perris.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 510006 12:00 59100060
0:15 800008 12:15 38200040
0:30 700007 12:30 34000034
0:45 700007 12:45 32100033
1:00 510006 13:00 40000040
1:15 600006 13:15 47010048
1:30 300003 13:30 51100052
1:45 500005 13:45 46000046
2:00 300003 14:00 60000060
2:15 200002 14:15 49000049
2:30 100001 14:30 52000052
2:45 300003 14:45 48000048
3:00 200002 15:00 57000057
3:15 400004 15:15 56000056
3:30 500005 15:30 61100062
3:45 10000010 15:45 37000037
4:00 14000014 16:00 71000071
4:15 17000017 16:15 39000039
4:30 20000020 16:30 53100054
4:45 11000011 16:45 53000053
5:00 15000015 17:00 63000063
5:15 19000019 17:15 46100047
5:30 21000021 17:30 48000048
5:45 23000023 17:45 42000042
6:00 28000028 18:00 48000048
6:15 29000029 18:15 57000057
6:30 27000027 18:30 30000030
6:45 38000038 18:45 33000033
7:00 48000048 19:00 41000041
7:15 79000079 19:15 20000020
7:30 82000082 19:30 32100033
7:45 78000078 19:45 33000033
8:00 57000057 20:00 33000033
8:15 61000061 20:15 31000031
8:30 36100037 20:30 32100033
8:45 34000034 20:45 35000035
9:00 27000027 21:00 29000029
9:15 33000033 21:15 24000024
9:30 27210030 21:30 28000028
9:45 44100045 21:45 24000024
10:00 28100029 22:00 19000019
10:15 39100040 22:15 14000014
10:30 27200029 22:30 16000016
10:45 32000032 22:45 16000016
11:00 36000036 23:00 16000016
11:15 37000037 23:15 19000019
11:30 26000026 23:30 800008
11:45 39100040 23:45 13000013
TOTAL 1,208 11 1 0 0 1,220 TOTAL 1,833 10 1 0 0 1,844
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 296 AM PEAK VOLUME 226
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 3,041 21 2 0 0 3,064
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.2% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 296 0 0 0 0 296
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 216 1 0 0 0 217
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 1 - Oakwood Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS75 Eastern Dwy south of Orange.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 200002 12:00 600006
0:15 100001 12:15 600006
0:30 100001 12:30 400004
0:45 200002 12:45 710008
1:00 100001 13:00 700007
1:15 100001 13:15 700007
1:30 100001 13:30 800008
1:45 100001 13:45 10000010
2:00 000000 14:00 800008
2:15 300003 14:15 610007
2:30 000000 14:30 17100018
2:45 000000 14:45 800008
3:00 000000 15:00 11000011
3:15 100001 15:15 500005
3:30 100001 15:30 16000016
3:45 300003 15:45 22000022
4:00 000000 16:00 10000010
4:15 100001 16:15 9200011
4:30 300003 16:30 14000014
4:45 200002 16:45 11000011
5:00 100001 17:00 10000010
5:15 000000 17:15 12000012
5:30 200002 17:30 17000017
5:45 300003 17:45 11000011
6:00 400004 18:00 500005
6:15 130004 18:15 700007
6:30 000000 18:30 15000015
6:45 210003 18:45 13000013
7:00 420006 19:00 800008
7:15 430007 19:15 900009
7:30 400004 19:30 900009
7:45 500005 19:45 800008
8:00 500005 20:00 600006
8:15 11000011 20:15 10000010
8:30 700007 20:30 400004
8:45 600006 20:45 700007
9:00 400004 21:00 400004
9:15 400004 21:15 200002
9:30 100001 21:30 600006
9:45 210003 21:45 800008
10:00 100001 22:00 300003
10:15 610007 22:15 500005
10:30 800008 22:30 500005
10:45 100001 22:45 300003
11:00 410005 23:00 100001
11:15 201003 23:15 500005
11:30 200002 23:30 000000
11:45 10110012 23:45 000000
TOTAL 128 13 2 0 0 143 TOTAL 3855000390
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 29 AM PEAK VOLUME 59
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 513 18 2 0 0 533
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 96.2% 3.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 29 0 0 0 0 29
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 50 0 0 0 0 50
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 2 - Springbrook Park Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS75 Eastern Dwy south of Orange.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 100001 12:00 810009
0:15 000000 12:15 600006
0:30 000000 12:30 621009
0:45 200002 12:45 400004
1:00 000000 13:00 500005
1:15 000000 13:15 600006
1:30 000000 13:30 300003
1:45 000000 13:45 800008
2:00 000000 14:00 12000012
2:15 300003 14:15 900009
2:30 200002 14:30 900009
2:45 500005 14:45 800008
3:00 000000 15:00 600006
3:15 400004 15:15 700007
3:30 600006 15:30 900009
3:45 100001 15:45 300003
4:00 300003 16:00 15000015
4:15 100001 16:15 11000011
4:30 500005 16:30 15000015
4:45 700007 16:45 900009
5:00 400004 17:00 500005
5:15 700007 17:15 11000011
5:30 300003 17:30 600006
5:45 600006 17:45 10000010
6:00 500005 18:00 500005
6:15 900009 18:15 900009
6:30 600006 18:30 500005
6:45 700007 18:45 600006
7:00 500005 19:00 10000010
7:15 12000012 19:15 10000010
7:30 19010020 19:30 500005
7:45 19000019 19:45 500005
8:00 700007 20:00 500005
8:15 900009 20:15 200002
8:30 401005 20:30 500005
8:45 900009 20:45 300003
9:00 300003 21:00 500005
9:15 600006 21:15 200002
9:30 400004 21:30 900009
9:45 100001 21:45 500005
10:00 500005 22:00 100001
10:15 800008 22:15 300003
10:30 400004 22:30 500005
10:45 300003 22:45 600006
11:00 11100012 23:00 300003
11:15 600006 23:15 000000
11:30 410005 23:30 400004
11:45 800008 23:45 200002
TOTAL 2342200238TOTAL 3063100310
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 58 AM PEAK VOLUME 50
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 5405300548
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.5% 0.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 57 0 1 0 0 58
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 50 0 0 0 0 50
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 2 - Springbrook Park Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS76 Western Dwy south of Orange.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 200002 12:00 710008
0:15 300003 12:15 11000011
0:30 100001 12:30 12210015
0:45 300003 12:45 600006
1:00 000000 13:00 13000013
1:15 100001 13:15 11100012
1:30 000000 13:30 10000010
1:45 100001 13:45 900009
2:00 100001 14:00 13000013
2:15 000000 14:15 10000010
2:30 000000 14:30 13000013
2:45 400004 14:45 10000010
3:00 000000 15:00 12000012
3:15 100001 15:15 13000013
3:30 000000 15:30 16000016
3:45 000000 15:45 15000015
4:00 000000 16:00 13100014
4:15 000000 16:15 14000014
4:30 200002 16:30 13000013
4:45 100001 16:45 14000014
5:00 100001 17:00 16000016
5:15 500005 17:15 13000013
5:30 400004 17:30 24000024
5:45 200002 17:45 17000017
6:00 500005 18:00 20000020
6:15 500005 18:15 15000015
6:30 200002 18:30 10000010
6:45 100001 18:45 900009
7:00 200002 19:00 18000018
7:15 201003 19:15 13000013
7:30 700007 19:30 800008
7:45 15000015 19:45 700007
8:00 900009 20:00 11000011
8:15 601007 20:15 11000011
8:30 10000010 20:30 700007
8:45 800008 20:45 900009
9:00 10000010 21:00 14000014
9:15 700007 21:15 11000011
9:30 310004 21:30 700007
9:45 300003 21:45 15000015
10:00 10100011 22:00 500005
10:15 300003 22:15 700007
10:30 800008 22:30 400004
10:45 700007 22:45 500005
11:00 300003 23:00 400004
11:15 700007 23:15 300003
11:30 210003 23:30 700007
11:45 700007 23:45 600006
TOTAL 1743200179TOTAL 5315100537
AM PEAK HOUR 7:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 41 AM PEAK VOLUME 76
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 7058300716
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.5% 1.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 40 0 1 0 0 41
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 70 0 0 0 0 70
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 2 - Springbrook Park Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS76 Western Dwy south of Orange.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 601007
0:15 100001 12:15 900009
0:30 000000 12:30 900009
0:45 100001 12:45 400004
1:00 000000 13:00 610007
1:15 000000 13:15 11100012
1:30 100001 13:30 20000020
1:45 000000 13:45 11000011
2:00 100001 14:00 13000013
2:15 100001 14:15 11000011
2:30 000000 14:30 11200013
2:45 000000 14:45 900009
3:00 000000 15:00 21000021
3:15 100001 15:15 11000011
3:30 600006 15:30 900009
3:45 900009 15:45 900009
4:00 400004 16:00 9100010
4:15 800008 16:15 810009
4:30 500005 16:30 810009
4:45 600006 16:45 10000010
5:00 500005 17:00 300003
5:15 600006 17:15 900009
5:30 600006 17:30 11000011
5:45 600006 17:45 11000011
6:00 700007 18:00 15000015
6:15 530008 18:15 10000010
6:30 13000013 18:30 900009
6:45 200002 18:45 900009
7:00 7300010 19:00 400004
7:15 17300020 19:15 900009
7:30 18000018 19:30 10000010
7:45 24000024 19:45 400004
8:00 16000016 20:00 700007
8:15 12000012 20:15 400004
8:30 17000017 20:30 11000011
8:45 14000014 20:45 500005
9:00 800008 21:00 600006
9:15 900009 21:15 700007
9:30 10100011 21:30 300003
9:45 110002 21:45 400004
10:00 13000013 22:00 11000011
10:15 12200014 22:15 200002
10:30 900009 22:30 500005
10:45 600006 22:45 000000
11:00 11000011 23:00 300003
11:15 300003 23:15 300003
11:30 501006 23:30 300003
11:45 810009 23:45 100001
TOTAL 314 14 1 0 0 329 TOTAL 3847100392
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 1:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 78 AM PEAK VOLUME 56
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 698 21 2 0 0 721
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 96.8% 2.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 75 3 0 0 0 78
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 35 3 0 0 0 38
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 2 - Springbrook Park Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS77 Dwy east of Clark
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 400004 12:00 13000013
0:15 300003 12:15 300003
0:30 100001 12:30 800008
0:45 500005 12:45 11000011
1:00 300003 13:00 800008
1:15 100001 13:15 12000012
1:30 000000 13:30 12000012
1:45 100001 13:45 600006
2:00 000000 14:00 12010013
2:15 100001 14:15 14000014
2:30 000000 14:30 11000011
2:45 100001 14:45 400004
3:00 000000 15:00 600006
3:15 000000 15:15 11000011
3:30 000000 15:30 11000011
3:45 100001 15:45 10000010
4:00 000000 16:00 500005
4:15 200002 16:15 16000016
4:30 200002 16:30 10000010
4:45 400004 16:45 13000013
5:00 400004 17:00 14000014
5:15 200002 17:15 16000016
5:30 100001 17:30 10000010
5:45 100001 17:45 12000012
6:00 000000 18:00 800008
6:15 100001 18:15 10000010
6:30 000000 18:30 16000016
6:45 100001 18:45 900009
7:00 200002 19:00 800008
7:15 10000010 19:15 17000017
7:30 18000018 19:30 13000013
7:45 16000016 19:45 400004
8:00 10000010 20:00 16000016
8:15 10000010 20:15 500005
8:30 600006 20:30 13000013
8:45 700007 20:45 11000011
9:00 500005 21:00 900009
9:15 600006 21:15 11000011
9:30 500005 21:30 500005
9:45 400004 21:45 800008
10:00 600006 22:00 800008
10:15 410005 22:15 200002
10:30 310004 22:30 100001
10:45 100001 22:45 600006
11:00 200002 23:00 400004
11:15 300003 23:15 200002
11:30 400004 23:30 000000
11:45 800008 23:45 400004
TOTAL 1692000171TOTAL 4380100439
AM PEAK HOUR 7:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 54 AM PEAK VOLUME 53
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 6072100610
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 54 0 0 0 0 54
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 53 0 0 0 0 53
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 3 - Vista Springs Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS77 Dwy east of Clark
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 100001 12:00 10000010
0:15 200002 12:15 13000013
0:30 100001 12:30 10000010
0:45 200002 12:45 10100011
1:00 100001 13:00 11000011
1:15 100001 13:15 10000010
1:30 300003 13:30 16010017
1:45 000000 13:45 19000019
2:00 000000 14:00 18000018
2:15 000000 14:15 19000019
2:30 100001 14:30 10000010
2:45 000000 14:45 16000016
3:00 100001 15:00 12000012
3:15 300003 15:15 13000013
3:30 600006 15:30 13000013
3:45 100001 15:45 900009
4:00 500005 16:00 800008
4:15 11000011 16:15 11000011
4:30 400004 16:30 10000010
4:45 200002 16:45 800008
5:00 500005 17:00 13000013
5:15 800008 17:15 11000011
5:30 400004 17:30 800008
5:45 400004 17:45 400004
6:00 10000010 18:00 600006
6:15 800008 18:15 700007
6:30 14000014 18:30 15000015
6:45 800008 18:45 19100020
7:00 23000023 19:00 700007
7:15 26000026 19:15 400004
7:30 27000027 19:30 700007
7:45 31000031 19:45 500005
8:00 31000031 20:00 600006
8:15 21000021 20:15 300003
8:30 15000015 20:30 200002
8:45 12000012 20:45 900009
9:00 900009 21:00 500005
9:15 11000011 21:15 700007
9:30 800008 21:30 900009
9:45 12000012 21:45 700007
10:00 13100014 22:00 600006
10:15 410005 22:15 400004
10:30 800008 22:30 500005
10:45 610007 22:45 000000
11:00 800008 23:00 100001
11:15 610007 23:15 200002
11:30 900009 23:30 000000
11:45 12000012 23:45 000000
TOTAL 3984000402TOTAL 4182100421
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 1:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 115 AM PEAK VOLUME 73
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 8166100823
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 115 0 0 0 0 115
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 42 0 0 0 0 42
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 3 - Vista Springs Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS78 Dwy north of Box Springs
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 800008 12:00 900009
0:15 500005 12:15 15000015
0:30 100001 12:30 17110019
0:45 300003 12:45 12100013
1:00 100001 13:00 14000014
1:15 500005 13:15 16010017
1:30 200002 13:30 9100010
1:45 400004 13:45 800008
2:00 300003 14:00 20000020
2:15 300003 14:15 22000022
2:30 200002 14:30 20000020
2:45 000000 14:45 11000011
3:00 000000 15:00 15000015
3:15 100001 15:15 29000029
3:30 000000 15:30 27000027
3:45 000000 15:45 13000013
4:00 300003 16:00 19000019
4:15 200002 16:15 21000021
4:30 100001 16:30 26000026
4:45 200002 16:45 13000013
5:00 200002 17:00 23000023
5:15 200002 17:15 21000021
5:30 100001 17:30 13000013
5:45 300003 17:45 17000017
6:00 300003 18:00 19000019
6:15 000000 18:15 20000020
6:30 600006 18:30 16000016
6:45 600006 18:45 13100014
7:00 700007 19:00 23000023
7:15 500005 19:15 16000016
7:30 600006 19:30 19000019
7:45 14000014 19:45 34000034
8:00 16000016 20:00 15000015
8:15 10000010 20:15 20000020
8:30 20000020 20:30 17000017
8:45 14000014 20:45 21000021
9:00 800008 21:00 16000016
9:15 500005 21:15 13000013
9:30 800008 21:30 700007
9:45 12100013 21:45 700007
10:00 12000012 22:00 11000011
10:15 10200012 22:15 300003
10:30 10200012 22:30 12000012
10:45 800008 22:45 500005
11:00 13000013 23:00 700007
11:15 13100014 23:15 600006
11:30 13100014 23:30 800008
11:45 12000012 23:45 10000010
TOTAL 2857000292TOTAL 7484200754
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 7:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 60 AM PEAK VOLUME 92
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 1,033 11 2 0 0 1,046
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.8% 1.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 60 0 0 0 0 60
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 83 0 0 0 0 83
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 3 - Vista Springs Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS78 Dwy north of Box Springs
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 700007 12:00 14000014
0:15 800008 12:15 18000018
0:30 100001 12:30 900009
0:45 000000 12:45 17000017
1:00 000000 13:00 14100015
1:15 200002 13:15 800008
1:30 400004 13:30 8110010
1:45 000000 13:45 13000013
2:00 600006 14:00 12000012
2:15 100001 14:15 900009
2:30 100001 14:30 11010012
2:45 200002 14:45 20000020
3:00 000000 15:00 600006
3:15 100001 15:15 20000020
3:30 100001 15:30 900009
3:45 000000 15:45 13000013
4:00 400004 16:00 16000016
4:15 11000011 16:15 18000018
4:30 14000014 16:30 16000016
4:45 300003 16:45 19000019
5:00 400004 17:00 14000014
5:15 500005 17:15 16000016
5:30 500005 17:30 18000018
5:45 14000014 17:45 12000012
6:00 800008 18:00 500005
6:15 11000011 18:15 900009
6:30 11000011 18:30 18000018
6:45 900009 18:45 900009
7:00 29000029 19:00 600006
7:15 17000017 19:15 16000016
7:30 12000012 19:30 200002
7:45 30000030 19:45 900009
8:00 16000016 20:00 400004
8:15 900009 20:15 10000010
8:30 11000011 20:30 10000010
8:45 15000015 20:45 400004
9:00 700007 21:00 800008
9:15 11000011 21:15 700007
9:30 12000012 21:30 300003
9:45 14000014 21:45 200002
10:00 17000017 22:00 200002
10:15 900009 22:15 100001
10:30 14200016 22:30 300003
10:45 810009 22:45 400004
11:00 700007 23:00 100001
11:15 800008 23:15 200002
11:30 900009 23:30 000000
11:45 10100011 23:45 100001
TOTAL 3984000402TOTAL 4662200470
AM PEAK HOUR 7:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 88 AM PEAK VOLUME 69
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 8646200872
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.1% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 88 0 0 0 0 88
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 69 0 0 0 0 69
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 3 - Vista Springs Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS73 Southern Dwy east of Country Village.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 000000
0:15 000000 12:15 000000
0:30 000000 12:30 000000
0:45 000000 12:45 000000
1:00 000000 13:00 000000
1:15 000000 13:15 000000
1:30 000000 13:30 000000
1:45 000000 13:45 000000
2:00 000000 14:00 000000
2:15 000000 14:15 000000
2:30 000000 14:30 000000
2:45 000000 14:45 000000
3:00 000000 15:00 000000
3:15 000000 15:15 000000
3:30 000000 15:30 000000
3:45 000000 15:45 000000
4:00 000000 16:00 000000
4:15 000000 16:15 000000
4:30 000000 16:30 000000
4:45 000000 16:45 000000
5:00 000000 17:00 000000
5:15 000000 17:15 000000
5:30 000000 17:30 000000
5:45 000000 17:45 000000
6:00 000000 18:00 000000
6:15 000000 18:15 000000
6:30 000000 18:30 000000
6:45 000000 18:45 000000
7:00 000000 19:00 000000
7:15 000000 19:15 000000
7:30 000000 19:30 000000
7:45 000000 19:45 000000
8:00 000000 20:00 000000
8:15 000000 20:15 000000
8:30 000000 20:30 000000
8:45 000000 20:45 000000
9:00 000000 21:00 000000
9:15 000000 21:15 000000
9:30 000000 21:30 000000
9:45 000000 21:45 000000
10:00 000000 22:00 000000
10:15 000000 22:15 000000
10:30 000000 22:30 000000
10:45 000000 22:45 000000
11:00 000000 23:00 000000
11:15 000000 23:15 000000
11:30 000000 23:30 000000
11:45 000000 23:45 000000
TOTAL 000000TOTAL 000000
AM PEAK HOUR 11:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 11:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 0 AM PEAK VOLUME 0
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 000000
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 4 - Vesada Aparment Homes
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS73 Southern Dwy east of Country Village.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 100001 12:00 100001
0:15 000000 12:15 300003
0:30 100001 12:30 200002
0:45 100001 12:45 300003
1:00 000000 13:00 000000
1:15 100001 13:15 000000
1:30 000000 13:30 600006
1:45 000000 13:45 000000
2:00 000000 14:00 200002
2:15 000000 14:15 500005
2:30 000000 14:30 410005
2:45 000000 14:45 100001
3:00 000000 15:00 200002
3:15 400004 15:15 100001
3:30 500005 15:30 100001
3:45 100001 15:45 000000
4:00 300003 16:00 100001
4:15 000000 16:15 500005
4:30 100001 16:30 100001
4:45 200002 16:45 000000
5:00 000000 17:00 100001
5:15 300003 17:15 200002
5:30 100001 17:30 000000
5:45 200002 17:45 200002
6:00 300003 18:00 100001
6:15 100001 18:15 100001
6:30 300003 18:30 100001
6:45 100001 18:45 100001
7:00 300003 19:00 300003
7:15 100001 19:15 000000
7:30 200002 19:30 300003
7:45 300003 19:45 100001
8:00 300003 20:00 100001
8:15 100001 20:15 000000
8:30 000000 20:30 200002
8:45 000000 20:45 200002
9:00 200002 21:00 200002
9:15 300003 21:15 300003
9:30 100001 21:30 400004
9:45 400004 21:45 000000
10:00 300003 22:00 300003
10:15 000000 22:15 200002
10:30 200002 22:30 200002
10:45 100001 22:45 100001
11:00 200002 23:00 100001
11:15 100001 23:15 100001
11:30 000000 23:30 000000
11:45 300003 23:45 000000
TOTAL 69000069TOTAL 78100079
AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 2:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 13 AM PEAK VOLUME 13
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 1471000148
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 9 0 0 0 0 9
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 7 0 0 0 0 7
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 4 - Vesada Aparment Homes
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS74 Northern Dwy east of Country Village.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 500005 12:00 33000033
0:15 10000010 12:15 33100034
0:30 500005 12:30 36100037
0:45 400004 12:45 37010038
1:00 700007 13:00 34000034
1:15 600006 13:15 36000036
1:30 100001 13:30 32000032
1:45 500005 13:45 34200036
2:00 600006 14:00 33000033
2:15 300003 14:15 26200028
2:30 100001 14:30 34000034
2:45 500005 14:45 39000039
3:00 200002 15:00 49000049
3:15 200002 15:15 39000039
3:30 700007 15:30 26000026
3:45 800008 15:45 65000065
4:00 300003 16:00 49000049
4:15 600006 16:15 59100060
4:30 400004 16:30 74000074
4:45 700007 16:45 52000052
5:00 600006 17:00 47000047
5:15 600006 17:15 51000051
5:30 300003 17:30 50000050
5:45 700007 17:45 55000055
6:00 500005 18:00 60000060
6:15 15000015 18:15 52000052
6:30 13000013 18:30 44000044
6:45 11000011 18:45 51200053
7:00 19000019 19:00 42000042
7:15 16000016 19:15 26000026
7:30 14000014 19:30 46000046
7:45 34000034 19:45 42000042
8:00 30000030 20:00 44000044
8:15 39000039 20:15 35000035
8:30 28000028 20:30 29000029
8:45 27000027 20:45 33000033
9:00 22000022 21:00 31000031
9:15 21000021 21:15 27000027
9:30 20200022 21:30 27000027
9:45 24200026 21:45 27000027
10:00 19100020 22:00 22000022
10:15 17100018 22:15 24000024
10:30 21000021 22:30 21000021
10:45 12000012 22:45 22000022
11:00 31010032 23:00 12000012
11:15 28000028 23:15 11000011
11:30 21100022 23:30 900009
11:45 23200025 23:45 700007
TOTAL 6299100639TOTAL 1,767 91001,777
AM PEAK HOUR 7:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 131 AM PEAK VOLUME 248
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 2,396 18 2 0 0 2,416
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.2% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 131 0 0 0 0 131
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 234 1 0 0 0 235
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 4 - Vesada Aparment Homes
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS74 Northern Dwy east of Country Village.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 200002 12:00 27200029
0:15 400004 12:15 33000033
0:30 200002 12:30 34200036
0:45 300003 12:45 28100029
1:00 200002 13:00 29010030
1:15 300003 13:15 44000044
1:30 500005 13:30 38100039
1:45 300003 13:45 29100030
2:00 200002 14:00 24200026
2:15 500005 14:15 22000022
2:30 100001 14:30 25100026
2:45 200002 14:45 35000035
3:00 500005 15:00 31000031
3:15 400004 15:15 21000021
3:30 16000016 15:30 29000029
3:45 600006 15:45 29000029
4:00 17000017 16:00 26000026
4:15 600006 16:15 29000029
4:30 17000017 16:30 29100030
4:45 20200022 16:45 31000031
5:00 19100020 17:00 30000030
5:15 14000014 17:15 34000034
5:30 14000014 17:30 38000038
5:45 17000017 17:45 36000036
6:00 18000018 18:00 37000037
6:15 38000038 18:15 41000041
6:30 34000034 18:30 31000031
6:45 46000046 18:45 21000021
7:00 46000046 19:00 31000031
7:15 82000082 19:15 24000024
7:30 56000056 19:30 40100041
7:45 52000052 19:45 32000032
8:00 48000048 20:00 30000030
8:15 59100060 20:15 17000017
8:30 26000026 20:30 17000017
8:45 32100033 20:45 19000019
9:00 27000027 21:00 15000015
9:15 26000026 21:15 14000014
9:30 31100032 21:30 12000012
9:45 36000036 21:45 19000019
10:00 28000028 22:00 13000013
10:15 32100033 22:15 15000015
10:30 32000032 22:30 11000011
10:45 23000023 22:45 10000010
11:00 29000029 23:00 500005
11:15 25000025 23:15 700007
11:30 32010033 23:30 10000010
11:45 33200035 23:45 300003
TOTAL 1,080 91001,090 TOTAL 1,205 12 1 0 0 1,218
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 238 AM PEAK VOLUME 152
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 2,285 21 2 0 0 2,308
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.0% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 238 0 0 0 0 238
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 138 0 0 0 0 138
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 4 - Vesada Aparment Homes
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS84 Northern Dwy east of Milky Way.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 400004 12:00 900009
0:15 100001 12:15 300003
0:30 100001 12:30 400004
0:45 000000 12:45 900009
1:00 100001 13:00 400004
1:15 000000 13:15 510006
1:30 100001 13:30 900009
1:45 000000 13:45 800008
2:00 000000 14:00 800008
2:15 000000 14:15 710008
2:30 000000 14:30 12000012
2:45 000000 14:45 13000013
3:00 100001 15:00 700007
3:15 100001 15:15 700007
3:30 000000 15:30 900009
3:45 000000 15:45 18000018
4:00 100001 16:00 600006
4:15 100001 16:15 18000018
4:30 000000 16:30 11000011
4:45 000000 16:45 15000015
5:00 000000 17:00 800008
5:15 200002 17:15 12000012
5:30 000000 17:30 600006
5:45 100001 17:45 15000015
6:00 000000 18:00 600006
6:15 100001 18:15 800008
6:30 200002 18:30 600006
6:45 200002 18:45 800008
7:00 100001 19:00 600006
7:15 300003 19:15 10000010
7:30 500005 19:30 800008
7:45 500106 19:45 600006
8:00 800008 20:00 900009
8:15 410005 20:15 12000012
8:30 400004 20:30 10000010
8:45 700007 20:45 800008
9:00 300003 21:00 800008
9:15 100001 21:15 800008
9:30 300003 21:30 200002
9:45 400004 21:45 700007
10:00 200002 22:00 400004
10:15 400004 22:15 200002
10:30 300003 22:30 400004
10:45 400004 22:45 400004
11:00 200002 23:00 400004
11:15 800008 23:15 100001
11:30 500005 23:30 200002
11:45 500005 23:45 100001
TOTAL 1011010103TOTAL 3672000369
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 24 AM PEAK VOLUME 53
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 4683010472
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 23 1 0 0 0 24
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 52 0 0 0 0 52
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 5 - Morning Ridge Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS84 Northern Dwy east of Milky Way.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 200002 12:00 600006
0:15 000000 12:15 11100012
0:30 000000 12:30 300003
0:45 200002 12:45 10100011
1:00 000000 13:00 700007
1:15 300003 13:15 900009
1:30 100001 13:30 420006
1:45 000000 13:45 11000011
2:00 000000 14:00 700007
2:15 100001 14:15 800008
2:30 000000 14:30 13000013
2:45 000000 14:45 810009
3:00 100001 15:00 700007
3:15 200002 15:15 600006
3:30 300003 15:30 12000012
3:45 100001 15:45 500005
4:00 000000 16:00 19000019
4:15 300003 16:15 600006
4:30 300003 16:30 400004
4:45 200002 16:45 900009
5:00 200002 17:00 400004
5:15 300003 17:15 510006
5:30 10000010 17:30 11000011
5:45 900009 17:45 15000015
6:00 300003 18:00 10000010
6:15 12000012 18:15 500005
6:30 12000012 18:30 10000010
6:45 500005 18:45 700007
7:00 10000010 19:00 300003
7:15 19000019 19:15 200002
7:30 13000013 19:30 500005
7:45 17000017 19:45 300003
8:00 13000013 20:00 700007
8:15 15000015 20:15 400004
8:30 14000014 20:30 400004
8:45 800008 20:45 200002
9:00 900009 21:00 500005
9:15 700007 21:15 300003
9:30 410005 21:30 200002
9:45 10100011 21:45 400004
10:00 700007 22:00 000000
10:15 400004 22:15 200002
10:30 10100011 22:30 000000
10:45 300003 22:45 100001
11:00 510006 23:00 100001
11:15 900009 23:15 100001
11:30 500005 23:30 100001
11:45 12000012 23:45 000000
TOTAL 2744000278TOTAL 2826000288
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 62 AM PEAK VOLUME 42
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 556 10 0 0 0 566
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.2% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 62 0 0 0 0 62
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 38 0 0 0 0 38
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 5 - Morning Ridge Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS85 Middle Dwy east of Milky Way.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 300003 12:00 10000010
0:15 300003 12:15 10000010
0:30 000000 12:30 14000014
0:45 000000 12:45 12000012
1:00 000000 13:00 12100013
1:15 200002 13:15 12100013
1:30 600006 13:30 11000011
1:45 000000 13:45 800008
2:00 200002 14:00 11100012
2:15 100001 14:15 600006
2:30 000000 14:30 10000010
2:45 100001 14:45 13000013
3:00 000000 15:00 15000015
3:15 000000 15:15 10000010
3:30 000000 15:30 10000010
3:45 000000 15:45 18000018
4:00 000000 16:00 18000018
4:15 100001 16:15 19000019
4:30 000000 16:30 20000020
4:45 100001 16:45 18100019
5:00 100001 17:00 20000020
5:15 000000 17:15 19000019
5:30 100001 17:30 19000019
5:45 000000 17:45 17000017
6:00 200002 18:00 11000011
6:15 200002 18:15 30000030
6:30 400004 18:30 15000015
6:45 200002 18:45 18000018
7:00 300003 19:00 23300026
7:15 300003 19:15 10000010
7:30 900009 19:30 19000019
7:45 900009 19:45 10000010
8:00 500005 20:00 11000011
8:15 13000013 20:15 600006
8:30 400004 20:30 900009
8:45 900009 20:45 600006
9:00 200002 21:00 700007
9:15 300003 21:15 400004
9:30 900009 21:30 800008
9:45 700007 21:45 200002
10:00 500005 22:00 400004
10:15 300003 22:15 100001
10:30 600006 22:30 100001
10:45 800008 22:45 600006
11:00 600006 23:00 700007
11:15 13000013 23:15 100001
11:30 11100012 23:30 400004
11:45 700007 23:45 000000
TOTAL 1671000168TOTAL 5457000552
AM PEAK HOUR 10:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 6:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 39 AM PEAK VOLUME 89
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 7128000720
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.9% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 31 0 0 0 0 31
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 75 1 0 0 0 76
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 5 - Morning Ridge Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS85 Middle Dwy east of Milky Way.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 700007
0:15 300003 12:15 500005
0:30 000000 12:30 15000015
0:45 100001 12:45 14000014
1:00 000000 13:00 610007
1:15 100001 13:15 9200011
1:30 100001 13:30 800008
1:45 000000 13:45 610007
2:00 000000 14:00 900009
2:15 000000 14:15 10100011
2:30 300003 14:30 800008
2:45 100001 14:45 12200014
3:00 000000 15:00 800008
3:15 000000 15:15 500005
3:30 500005 15:30 800008
3:45 000000 15:45 11000011
4:00 000000 16:00 16100017
4:15 000000 16:15 11000011
4:30 520007 16:30 700007
4:45 300003 16:45 900009
5:00 100001 17:00 11000011
5:15 900009 17:15 12000012
5:30 8200010 17:30 12000012
5:45 720009 17:45 12000012
6:00 600006 18:00 900009
6:15 12000012 18:15 500005
6:30 700007 18:30 11000011
6:45 800008 18:45 800008
7:00 600006 19:00 500005
7:15 800008 19:15 800008
7:30 27300030 19:30 800008
7:45 17000017 19:45 700007
8:00 25000025 20:00 500005
8:15 13000013 20:15 600006
8:30 19000019 20:30 400004
8:45 12000012 20:45 300003
9:00 300003 21:00 600006
9:15 600006 21:15 200002
9:30 900009 21:30 300003
9:45 11000011 21:45 300003
10:00 500005 22:00 200002
10:15 800008 22:15 100001
10:30 700007 22:30 500005
10:45 800008 22:45 200002
11:00 800008 23:00 400004
11:15 800008 23:15 300003
11:30 500005 23:30 000000
11:45 900009 23:45 100001
TOTAL 2959000304TOTAL 3428000350
AM PEAK HOUR 7:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 85 AM PEAK VOLUME 47
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 637 17 0 0 0 654
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 97.4% 2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 82 3 0 0 0 85
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 47 0 0 0 0 47
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 5 - Morning Ridge Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS86 Southern Dwy east of Milky Way.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 100001 12:00 400004
0:15 000000 12:15 500005
0:30 200002 12:30 710008
0:45 000000 12:45 710008
1:00 100001 13:00 400004
1:15 200002 13:15 400004
1:30 100001 13:30 9200011
1:45 100001 13:45 13100014
2:00 000000 14:00 11000011
2:15 000000 14:15 710008
2:30 000000 14:30 11000011
2:45 000000 14:45 11200013
3:00 100001 15:00 700007
3:15 100001 15:15 12100013
3:30 000000 15:30 800008
3:45 000000 15:45 900009
4:00 100001 16:00 500005
4:15 000000 16:15 700007
4:30 000000 16:30 16000016
4:45 000000 16:45 14000014
5:00 200002 17:00 10000010
5:15 000000 17:15 9100010
5:30 200002 17:30 10100011
5:45 000000 17:45 900009
6:00 200002 18:00 11000011
6:15 200002 18:15 16000016
6:30 200002 18:30 11000011
6:45 100001 18:45 10000010
7:00 500005 19:00 900009
7:15 400004 19:15 16000016
7:30 130004 19:30 11000011
7:45 500005 19:45 800008
8:00 700007 20:00 12000012
8:15 200002 20:15 16000016
8:30 900009 20:30 400004
8:45 500005 20:45 400004
9:00 500005 21:00 900009
9:15 400004 21:15 800008
9:30 600006 21:30 700007
9:45 310004 21:45 400004
10:00 300003 22:00 500005
10:15 400004 22:15 600006
10:30 400004 22:30 700007
10:45 210003 22:45 400004
11:00 500005 23:00 100001
11:15 200002 23:15 300003
11:30 900009 23:30 400004
11:45 200002 23:45 300003
TOTAL 1095000114TOTAL 398 11 0 0 0 409
AM PEAK HOUR 8:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 23 AM PEAK VOLUME 50
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 507 16 0 0 0 523
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 96.9% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 23 0 0 0 0 23
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 49 1 0 0 0 50
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 5 - Morning Ridge Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS86 Southern Dwy east of Milky Way.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 100001 12:00 400004
0:15 000000 12:15 600006
0:30 100001 12:30 700007
0:45 000000 12:45 400004
1:00 200002 13:00 400004
1:15 000000 13:15 500005
1:30 300003 13:30 11000011
1:45 000000 13:45 410005
2:00 000000 14:00 14000014
2:15 000000 14:15 510006
2:30 000000 14:30 15000015
2:45 000000 14:45 600006
3:00 000000 15:00 500005
3:15 000000 15:15 600006
3:30 100001 15:30 100001
3:45 000000 15:45 500005
4:00 200002 16:00 600006
4:15 200002 16:15 600006
4:30 900009 16:30 900009
4:45 300003 16:45 13000013
5:00 600006 17:00 10000010
5:15 900009 17:15 900009
5:30 800008 17:30 400004
5:45 500005 17:45 700007
6:00 800008 18:00 800008
6:15 700007 18:15 400004
6:30 800008 18:30 400004
6:45 300003 18:45 500005
7:00 400004 19:00 500005
7:15 500005 19:15 700007
7:30 12000012 19:30 400004
7:45 900009 19:45 300003
8:00 700007 20:00 400004
8:15 700108 20:15 300003
8:30 15000015 20:30 400004
8:45 400004 20:45 400004
9:00 300003 21:00 200002
9:15 600006 21:15 700007
9:30 800008 21:30 200002
9:45 600006 21:45 400004
10:00 700007 22:00 000000
10:15 400004 22:15 400004
10:30 500005 22:30 100001
10:45 200002 22:45 100001
11:00 10000010 23:00 100001
11:15 400004 23:15 200002
11:30 500005 23:30 000000
11:45 700007 23:45 200002
TOTAL 2080010209TOTAL 2472000249
AM PEAK HOUR 7:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 39 AM PEAK VOLUME 41
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 4552010458
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 38 0 0 1 0 39
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 41 0 0 0 0 41
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 5 - Morning Ridge Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS71 Northern dwy west of Doolittle
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 12000012
0:15 200002 12:15 900009
0:30 200002 12:30 11000011
0:45 300003 12:45 12000012
1:00 100001 13:00 500005
1:15 500005 13:15 700007
1:30 200002 13:30 11000011
1:45 300003 13:45 10000010
2:00 100001 14:00 16000016
2:15 100001 14:15 14000014
2:30 000000 14:30 23000023
2:45 000000 14:45 10000010
3:00 300003 15:00 17000017
3:15 300003 15:15 18000018
3:30 100001 15:30 14000014
3:45 110002 15:45 16000016
4:00 100001 16:00 17000017
4:15 000000 16:15 16000016
4:30 100001 16:30 17000017
4:45 600006 16:45 12000012
5:00 300003 17:00 16000016
5:15 600006 17:15 22000022
5:30 000000 17:30 17000017
5:45 100001 17:45 17000017
6:00 200002 18:00 20000020
6:15 100001 18:15 10000010
6:30 200002 18:30 15000015
6:45 300003 18:45 15000015
7:00 300003 19:00 600006
7:15 400004 19:15 610007
7:30 400004 19:30 16000016
7:45 900009 19:45 10000010
8:00 13000013 20:00 800008
8:15 700007 20:15 13000013
8:30 12100013 20:30 15000015
8:45 13000013 20:45 11000011
9:00 500005 21:00 14000014
9:15 300003 21:15 900009
9:30 400004 21:30 12000012
9:45 710008 21:45 12000012
10:00 200002 22:00 800008
10:15 500005 22:15 400004
10:30 600006 22:30 500005
10:45 700007 22:45 300003
11:00 810009 23:00 700007
11:15 100001 23:15 500005
11:30 500005 23:30 500005
11:45 11000011 23:45 200002
TOTAL 1834000187TOTAL 5701000571
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 46 AM PEAK VOLUME 76
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 7535000758
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 45 1 0 0 0 46
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 72 0 0 0 0 72
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 6 - Stonegate Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS71 Northern dwy west of Doolittle
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 900009
0:15 000000 12:15 13000013
0:30 000000 12:30 13100014
0:45 200002 12:45 17000017
1:00 000000 13:00 600006
1:15 200002 13:15 12000012
1:30 100001 13:30 14100015
1:45 100001 13:45 20000020
2:00 000000 14:00 12000012
2:15 300003 14:15 800008
2:30 100001 14:30 13000013
2:45 000000 14:45 610007
3:00 000000 15:00 13000013
3:15 600006 15:15 12000012
3:30 500005 15:30 13000013
3:45 600006 15:45 11000011
4:00 500005 16:00 12000012
4:15 400004 16:15 900009
4:30 600006 16:30 600006
4:45 400004 16:45 12000012
5:00 600006 17:00 800008
5:15 700007 17:15 13000013
5:30 11000011 17:30 14000014
5:45 12000012 17:45 800008
6:00 100001 18:00 11000011
6:15 700007 18:15 900009
6:30 12000012 18:30 500005
6:45 17000017 18:45 700007
7:00 800008 19:00 800008
7:15 16000016 19:15 900009
7:30 21000021 19:30 600006
7:45 18000018 19:45 800008
8:00 13000013 20:00 600006
8:15 500005 20:15 11000011
8:30 700007 20:30 700007
8:45 800008 20:45 600006
9:00 10010011 21:00 400004
9:15 14000014 21:15 400004
9:30 710008 21:30 310004
9:45 700007 21:45 510006
10:00 710008 22:00 400004
10:15 510006 22:15 200002
10:30 510006 22:30 300003
10:45 10200012 22:45 000000
11:00 510006 23:00 600006
11:15 400004 23:15 000000
11:30 710008 23:30 200002
11:45 13000013 23:45 100001
TOTAL 3098100318TOTAL 4015000406
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 1:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 68 AM PEAK VOLUME 59
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 710 13 1 0 0 724
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.1% 1.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 68 0 0 0 0 68
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 47 0 0 0 0 47
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 6 - Stonegate Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS72 Southern dwy west of Doolittle
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 200002 12:00 19100020
0:15 100001 12:15 16100017
0:30 200002 12:30 16000016
0:45 200002 12:45 11000011
1:00 200002 13:00 12000012
1:15 100001 13:15 18000018
1:30 000000 13:30 13100014
1:45 000000 13:45 500005
2:00 200002 14:00 18000018
2:15 100001 14:15 13000013
2:30 000000 14:30 15000015
2:45 000000 14:45 17100018
3:00 000000 15:00 21000021
3:15 200002 15:15 19200021
3:30 000000 15:30 11000011
3:45 100001 15:45 19100020
4:00 100001 16:00 24000024
4:15 000000 16:15 13000013
4:30 000000 16:30 900009
4:45 000000 16:45 18000018
5:00 100001 17:00 24000024
5:15 100001 17:15 15000015
5:30 200002 17:30 21000021
5:45 100001 17:45 23000023
6:00 000000 18:00 12000012
6:15 400004 18:15 13000013
6:30 300003 18:30 12000012
6:45 300003 18:45 11000011
7:00 400004 19:00 13000013
7:15 420006 19:15 21000021
7:30 610007 19:30 500005
7:45 400004 19:45 10000010
8:00 13000013 20:00 13100014
8:15 11000011 20:15 12000012
8:30 10010011 20:30 17000017
8:45 600006 20:45 10000010
9:00 10000010 21:00 11000011
9:15 13000013 21:15 810009
9:30 10100011 21:30 100001
9:45 700007 21:45 900009
10:00 501006 22:00 400004
10:15 10200012 22:15 200002
10:30 21100022 22:30 500005
10:45 710008 22:45 500005
11:00 14000014 23:00 300003
11:15 10200012 23:15 200002
11:30 18100019 23:30 400004
11:45 10000010 23:45 100001
TOTAL 225 11 2 0 0 238 TOTAL 5949000603
AM PEAK HOUR 10:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 56 AM PEAK VOLUME 83
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 819 20 2 0 0 841
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 97.4% 2.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 38 0 1 0 0 39
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 83 0 0 0 0 83
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 6 - Stonegate Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS72 Southern dwy west of Doolittle
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 14000014
0:15 100001 12:15 300003
0:30 200002 12:30 500005
0:45 200002 12:45 16000016
1:00 000000 13:00 400004
1:15 200002 13:15 800008
1:30 000000 13:30 600006
1:45 100001 13:45 11100012
2:00 200002 14:00 500005
2:15 100001 14:15 600006
2:30 000000 14:30 10000010
2:45 000000 14:45 600006
3:00 000000 15:00 600006
3:15 000000 15:15 300003
3:30 300003 15:30 10000010
3:45 300003 15:45 12000012
4:00 610007 16:00 12000012
4:15 200002 16:15 800008
4:30 200002 16:30 800008
4:45 200002 16:45 12000012
5:00 000000 17:00 700007
5:15 500005 17:15 800008
5:30 700007 17:30 800008
5:45 500005 17:45 600006
6:00 500005 18:00 800008
6:15 400004 18:15 900009
6:30 12000012 18:30 600006
6:45 400004 18:45 600006
7:00 500005 19:00 400004
7:15 600006 19:15 900009
7:30 11000011 19:30 800008
7:45 18000018 19:45 400004
8:00 800008 20:00 300003
8:15 11000011 20:15 500005
8:30 11000011 20:30 500005
8:45 100001 20:45 200002
9:00 400004 21:00 300003
9:15 900009 21:15 200002
9:30 800008 21:30 500005
9:45 800008 21:45 400004
10:00 300003 22:00 300003
10:15 10000010 22:15 300003
10:30 900009 22:30 200002
10:45 900009 22:45 400004
11:00 700007 23:00 200002
11:15 10000010 23:15 200002
11:30 800008 23:30 300003
11:45 800008 23:45 000000
TOTAL 2351000236TOTAL 2961000297
AM PEAK HOUR 7:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 48 AM PEAK VOLUME 42
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 5312000533
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 48 0 0 0 0 48
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 40 0 0 0 0 40
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 6 - Stonegate Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS82 Dwy east of Elm.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 000000
0:15 000000 12:15 000000
0:30 000000 12:30 000000
0:45 000000 12:45 000000
1:00 000000 13:00 000000
1:15 000000 13:15 000000
1:30 000000 13:30 000000
1:45 000000 13:45 000000
2:00 000000 14:00 000000
2:15 000000 14:15 000000
2:30 000000 14:30 000000
2:45 000000 14:45 000000
3:00 000000 15:00 000000
3:15 000000 15:15 000000
3:30 000000 15:30 000000
3:45 000000 15:45 000000
4:00 000000 16:00 000000
4:15 000000 16:15 000000
4:30 000000 16:30 000000
4:45 000000 16:45 000000
5:00 000000 17:00 000000
5:15 000000 17:15 000000
5:30 000000 17:30 000000
5:45 000000 17:45 000000
6:00 000000 18:00 000000
6:15 000000 18:15 000000
6:30 000000 18:30 000000
6:45 000000 18:45 000000
7:00 000000 19:00 000000
7:15 000000 19:15 000000
7:30 000000 19:30 000000
7:45 000000 19:45 000000
8:00 000000 20:00 000000
8:15 000000 20:15 000000
8:30 100001 20:30 000000
8:45 000000 20:45 000000
9:00 000000 21:00 000000
9:15 000000 21:15 000000
9:30 000000 21:30 000000
9:45 000000 21:45 000000
10:00 000000 22:00 000000
10:15 000000 22:15 000000
10:30 000000 22:30 000000
10:45 000000 22:45 000000
11:00 000000 23:00 000000
11:15 100001 23:15 000000
11:30 000000 23:30 000000
11:45 000000 23:45 000000
TOTAL 200002TOTAL 000000
AM PEAK HOUR 11:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 11:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 1 AM PEAK VOLUME 0
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 200002
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 1 0 0 0 0 1
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 0 0 0 0 0 0
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 7 - River's Edge Apartment Homes
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS82 Dwy east of Elm.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 000000
0:15 000000 12:15 210003
0:30 000000 12:30 200002
0:45 000000 12:45 100001
1:00 000000 13:00 000000
1:15 000000 13:15 100001
1:30 000000 13:30 100001
1:45 000000 13:45 400004
2:00 000000 14:00 100001
2:15 100001 14:15 400004
2:30 000000 14:30 000000
2:45 100001 14:45 110002
3:00 000000 15:00 300003
3:15 000000 15:15 300104
3:30 000000 15:30 200002
3:45 000000 15:45 200002
4:00 000000 16:00 300003
4:15 000000 16:15 300003
4:30 000000 16:30 110002
4:45 000000 16:45 200002
5:00 000000 17:00 000000
5:15 000000 17:15 000000
5:30 000000 17:30 200002
5:45 200002 17:45 000000
6:00 100001 18:00 300003
6:15 000000 18:15 000000
6:30 000000 18:30 100001
6:45 000000 18:45 200002
7:00 000000 19:00 300003
7:15 100001 19:15 100001
7:30 200002 19:30 100001
7:45 700007 19:45 100001
8:00 500005 20:00 000000
8:15 100001 20:15 100001
8:30 400004 20:30 200002
8:45 100001 20:45 200002
9:00 400004 21:00 100001
9:15 100001 21:15 100001
9:30 200002 21:30 000000
9:45 000000 21:45 400004
10:00 000000 22:00 100001
10:15 100001 22:15 000000
10:30 100001 22:30 100001
10:45 000000 22:45 000000
11:00 000000 23:00 000000
11:15 110002 23:15 000000
11:30 200002 23:30 200002
11:45 010001 23:45 000000
TOTAL 38200040TOTAL 65301069
AM PEAK HOUR 7:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 17 AM PEAK VOLUME 11
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 1035010109
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 94.5% 4.6% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 17 0 0 0 0 17
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 9 1 0 0 0 10
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 7 - River's Edge Apartment Homes
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS83 Dwy south of Lakeshore.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 300003 12:00 23300026
0:15 200002 12:15 17200019
0:30 400004 12:30 22000022
0:45 300003 12:45 15000015
1:00 200002 13:00 17000017
1:15 200002 13:15 17200019
1:30 000000 13:30 15000015
1:45 300003 13:45 36000036
2:00 200002 14:00 29000029
2:15 200002 14:15 25200027
2:30 300003 14:30 13200015
2:45 500005 14:45 32101034
3:00 200002 15:00 27000027
3:15 000000 15:15 19000019
3:30 100001 15:30 25100026
3:45 100001 15:45 43000043
4:00 200002 16:00 36000036
4:15 100001 16:15 23100024
4:30 200002 16:30 41000041
4:45 210003 16:45 35000035
5:00 300003 17:00 42200044
5:15 300003 17:15 35000035
5:30 200002 17:30 32000032
5:45 700007 17:45 27000027
6:00 600006 18:00 45000045
6:15 600006 18:15 40000040
6:30 300003 18:30 35100036
6:45 100001 18:45 30000030
7:00 810009 19:00 32000032
7:15 410005 19:15 29000029
7:30 21000021 19:30 23000023
7:45 28000028 19:45 27000027
8:00 17000017 20:00 37100038
8:15 28000028 20:15 18000018
8:30 11000011 20:30 20000020
8:45 14100015 20:45 20000020
9:00 13000013 21:00 31000031
9:15 15100016 21:15 14000014
9:30 12200014 21:30 17000017
9:45 14100015 21:45 15000015
10:00 15300018 22:00 14000014
10:15 15100016 22:15 900009
10:30 10200012 22:30 11000011
10:45 10100011 22:45 10000010
11:00 12200014 23:00 600006
11:15 12000012 23:15 10000010
11:30 22000022 23:30 500005
11:45 26000026 23:45 700007
TOTAL 380 17 0 0 0 397 TOTAL 1,151 18 0 1 0 1,170
AM PEAK HOUR 7:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 94 AM PEAK VOLUME 155
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 1,531 35 0 1 0 1,567
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 97.7% 2.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 94 0 0 0 0 94
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 153 2 0 0 0 155
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 7 - River's Edge Apartment Homes
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS83 Dwy south of Lakeshore.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 700007 12:00 21000021
0:15 100001 12:15 15000015
0:30 100001 12:30 20100021
0:45 000000 12:45 14100015
1:00 100001 13:00 15000015
1:15 300003 13:15 16000016
1:30 200002 13:30 22100023
1:45 200002 13:45 24100025
2:00 200002 14:00 23000023
2:15 000000 14:15 15000015
2:30 000000 14:30 25100026
2:45 100001 14:45 26100027
3:00 200002 15:00 18100019
3:15 500005 15:15 31000031
3:30 300003 15:30 23000023
3:45 600006 15:45 31100032
4:00 300003 16:00 15000015
4:15 900009 16:15 23000023
4:30 900009 16:30 25000025
4:45 17000017 16:45 27000027
5:00 700007 17:00 32000032
5:15 13000013 17:15 25000025
5:30 15100016 17:30 18000018
5:45 13000013 17:45 20000020
6:00 12100013 18:00 18000018
6:15 19000019 18:15 24000024
6:30 23000023 18:30 25100026
6:45 16100017 18:45 16000016
7:00 13200015 19:00 900009
7:15 35000035 19:15 11000011
7:30 55000055 19:30 11000011
7:45 40000040 19:45 15000015
8:00 35000035 20:00 900009
8:15 20000020 20:15 13000013
8:30 17000017 20:30 15100016
8:45 18000018 20:45 13000013
9:00 21000021 21:00 12000012
9:15 28000028 21:15 700007
9:30 24100025 21:30 610007
9:45 13000013 21:45 700007
10:00 21200023 22:00 700007
10:15 26300029 22:15 600006
10:30 16200018 22:30 500005
10:45 16300019 22:45 700007
11:00 15000015 23:00 600006
11:15 14100015 23:15 300003
11:30 21000021 23:30 400004
11:45 16100017 23:45 200002
TOTAL 656 18 0 0 0 674 TOTAL 775 11 0 0 0 786
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 165 AM PEAK VOLUME 109
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 1,431 29 0 0 0 1,460
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 165 0 0 0 0 165
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 109 0 0 0 0 109
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 7 - River's Edge Apartment Homes
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS90 Western Dwy south of Mayberry.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 100001 12:00 300003
0:15 100001 12:15 12000012
0:30 200002 12:30 600006
0:45 000000 12:45 300003
1:00 100001 13:00 100001
1:15 300003 13:15 10001011
1:30 000000 13:30 900009
1:45 100001 13:45 600006
2:00 000000 14:00 10000010
2:15 300003 14:15 800008
2:30 200002 14:30 12000012
2:45 000000 14:45 18000018
3:00 400004 15:00 13000013
3:15 100001 15:15 700007
3:30 300003 15:30 17100018
3:45 100001 15:45 17000017
4:00 000000 16:00 600006
4:15 000000 16:15 800008
4:30 000000 16:30 900009
4:45 200002 16:45 15000015
5:00 000000 17:00 900009
5:15 200002 17:15 10000010
5:30 000000 17:30 14000014
5:45 000000 17:45 11000011
6:00 300003 18:00 810009
6:15 500005 18:15 12000012
6:30 600006 18:30 900009
6:45 000000 18:45 810009
7:00 200002 19:00 400004
7:15 500005 19:15 900009
7:30 12000012 19:30 800008
7:45 300003 19:45 700007
8:00 400004 20:00 800008
8:15 700007 20:15 200002
8:30 11000011 20:30 900009
8:45 100001 20:45 500005
9:00 500005 21:00 700007
9:15 300003 21:15 300003
9:30 200002 21:30 100001
9:45 400004 21:45 200002
10:00 500005 22:00 200002
10:15 220004 22:15 200002
10:30 500005 22:30 300003
10:45 300003 22:45 400004
11:00 500005 23:00 300003
11:15 600006 23:15 500005
11:30 600006 23:30 400004
11:45 300003 23:45 100001
TOTAL 1352000137TOTAL 3603010364
AM PEAK HOUR 7:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 2:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 26 AM PEAK VOLUME 56
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 4955010501
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.8% 1.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 26 0 0 0 0 26
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 44 0 0 0 0 44
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 8 - Mayberry Colony Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS90 Western Dwy south of Mayberry.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 11000011
0:15 100001 12:15 11000011
0:30 000000 12:30 900009
0:45 100001 12:45 800008
1:00 000000 13:00 600006
1:15 100001 13:15 600006
1:30 000000 13:30 300003
1:45 200002 13:45 700007
2:00 000000 14:00 12000012
2:15 000000 14:15 14000014
2:30 000000 14:30 10000010
2:45 300003 14:45 11000011
3:00 200002 15:00 10000010
3:15 500005 15:15 900009
3:30 500005 15:30 800008
3:45 400004 15:45 700007
4:00 000000 16:00 11000011
4:15 500005 16:15 10000010
4:30 700007 16:30 10000010
4:45 300003 16:45 800008
5:00 800008 17:00 16000016
5:15 000000 17:15 13100014
5:30 200002 17:30 12000012
5:45 600006 17:45 13000013
6:00 400004 18:00 11000011
6:15 300003 18:15 500005
6:30 900009 18:30 700007
6:45 800008 18:45 12000012
7:00 700007 19:00 800008
7:15 21000021 19:15 500005
7:30 400004 19:30 700007
7:45 700007 19:45 600006
8:00 21000021 20:00 500005
8:15 10000010 20:15 700007
8:30 800109 20:30 600006
8:45 700007 20:45 300003
9:00 900009 21:00 100001
9:15 500005 21:15 500005
9:30 300003 21:30 300003
9:45 200002 21:45 500005
10:00 9100010 22:00 100001
10:15 430007 22:15 100001
10:30 210003 22:30 000000
10:45 900009 22:45 200002
11:00 11000011 23:00 200002
11:15 200002 23:15 400004
11:30 500005 23:30 500005
11:45 800008 23:45 200002
TOTAL 2335010239TOTAL 3481000349
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 53 AM PEAK VOLUME 55
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 5816010588
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.8% 1.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 53 0 0 0 0 53
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 54 1 0 0 0 55
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 8 - Mayberry Colony Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS91 Eastern Dwy south of Mayberry.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 300003 12:00 800008
0:15 300003 12:15 800008
0:30 100001 12:30 300003
0:45 100001 12:45 500005
1:00 000000 13:00 700007
1:15 400004 13:15 400004
1:30 000000 13:30 700007
1:45 100001 13:45 200002
2:00 100001 14:00 900009
2:15 100001 14:15 14000014
2:30 000000 14:30 14000014
2:45 100001 14:45 800008
3:00 000000 15:00 200002
3:15 000000 15:15 100001
3:30 300003 15:30 300003
3:45 000000 15:45 300003
4:00 000000 16:00 900009
4:15 100001 16:15 900009
4:30 100001 16:30 700007
4:45 000000 16:45 13000013
5:00 000000 17:00 810009
5:15 000000 17:15 12000012
5:30 300003 17:30 700007
5:45 300003 17:45 11000011
6:00 000000 18:00 14000014
6:15 000000 18:15 600006
6:30 200002 18:30 300003
6:45 000000 18:45 13000013
7:00 12000012 19:00 14000014
7:15 700007 19:15 10000010
7:30 400004 19:30 200002
7:45 800008 19:45 800008
8:00 300003 20:00 300003
8:15 600006 20:15 400004
8:30 600107 20:30 400004
8:45 700007 20:45 700007
9:00 500005 21:00 200002
9:15 300003 21:15 300003
9:30 500005 21:30 300003
9:45 320005 21:45 300003
10:00 200002 22:00 200002
10:15 320005 22:15 200002
10:30 500005 22:30 600006
10:45 400004 22:45 200002
11:00 200002 23:00 100001
11:15 300003 23:15 100001
11:30 700007 23:30 300003
11:45 300003 23:45 200002
TOTAL 1274010132TOTAL 2921000293
AM PEAK HOUR 7:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 2:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 31 AM PEAK VOLUME 45
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 4195010425
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.6% 1.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 31 0 0 0 0 31
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 40 1 0 0 0 41
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 8 - Mayberry Colony Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS91 Eastern Dwy south of Mayberry.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 700007
0:15 000000 12:15 500005
0:30 100001 12:30 300003
0:45 000000 12:45 300003
1:00 000000 13:00 400004
1:15 000000 13:15 900009
1:30 100001 13:30 400105
1:45 000000 13:45 500005
2:00 000000 14:00 11000011
2:15 000000 14:15 800008
2:30 200002 14:30 200002
2:45 100001 14:45 400004
3:00 100001 15:00 700007
3:15 000000 15:15 500005
3:30 000000 15:30 710008
3:45 000000 15:45 11000011
4:00 100001 16:00 500005
4:15 100001 16:15 10000010
4:30 100001 16:30 700007
4:45 300003 16:45 300003
5:00 100001 17:00 200002
5:15 300003 17:15 400004
5:30 300003 17:30 500005
5:45 700007 17:45 700007
6:00 200002 18:00 300003
6:15 200002 18:15 400004
6:30 300003 18:30 300003
6:45 900009 18:45 500005
7:00 11000011 19:00 200002
7:15 900009 19:15 400004
7:30 10000010 19:30 000000
7:45 600006 19:45 000000
8:00 100001 20:00 200002
8:15 300003 20:15 200002
8:30 11000011 20:30 200002
8:45 13000013 20:45 100001
9:00 200002 21:00 100001
9:15 200002 21:15 100001
9:30 400004 21:30 000000
9:45 400004 21:45 000000
10:00 100001 22:00 200002
10:15 710008 22:15 200002
10:30 500005 22:30 100001
10:45 500005 22:45 400004
11:00 100001 23:00 200002
11:15 300003 23:15 000000
11:30 400004 23:30 200002
11:45 300003 23:45 000000
TOTAL 1471000148TOTAL 1811010183
AM PEAK HOUR 6:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 39 AM PEAK VOLUME 34
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 3282010331
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.1% 0.6% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 36 0 0 0 0 36
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 25 0 0 0 0 25
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 8 - Mayberry Colony Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS92 DWY west of Hathaway.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 100001 12:00 900009
0:15 100001 12:15 601007
0:30 200002 12:30 700007
0:45 200002 12:45 500005
1:00 200002 13:00 400004
1:15 100001 13:15 300003
1:30 000000 13:30 800008
1:45 000000 13:45 710008
2:00 100001 14:00 10100011
2:15 000000 14:15 500005
2:30 000000 14:30 11000011
2:45 000000 14:45 400004
3:00 100001 15:00 500005
3:15 100001 15:15 600006
3:30 000000 15:30 13000013
3:45 100001 15:45 12000012
4:00 000000 16:00 13000013
4:15 100001 16:15 700007
4:30 300003 16:30 900009
4:45 200002 16:45 300003
5:00 000000 17:00 700007
5:15 100001 17:15 800008
5:30 100001 17:30 700007
5:45 100001 17:45 700007
6:00 000000 18:00 800008
6:15 101002 18:15 500005
6:30 100001 18:30 900009
6:45 200002 18:45 700007
7:00 300003 19:00 410005
7:15 200002 19:15 700007
7:30 200002 19:30 900009
7:45 400004 19:45 600006
8:00 500005 20:00 10000010
8:15 700007 20:15 700007
8:30 300003 20:30 600006
8:45 700007 20:45 400004
9:00 200002 21:00 800008
9:15 400004 21:15 500005
9:30 400004 21:30 500005
9:45 310004 21:45 500005
10:00 700007 22:00 400004
10:15 200002 22:15 12000012
10:30 200002 22:30 400004
10:45 300003 22:45 500005
11:00 100001 23:00 400004
11:15 700007 23:15 100001
11:30 410005 23:30 100001
11:45 300003 23:45 000000
TOTAL 1012100104TOTAL 3123100316
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 22 AM PEAK VOLUME 45
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 4135200420
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.3% 1.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 22 0 0 0 0 22
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 32 0 0 0 0 32
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 9 - Summit Ridge Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS92 DWY west of Hathaway.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 301004
0:15 000000 12:15 900009
0:30 100001 12:30 900009
0:45 000000 12:45 300003
1:00 000000 13:00 600006
1:15 000000 13:15 310004
1:30 000000 13:30 900009
1:45 000000 13:45 300003
2:00 000000 14:00 810009
2:15 100001 14:15 700007
2:30 100001 14:30 900009
2:45 000000 14:45 100001
3:00 000000 15:00 600006
3:15 100001 15:15 800008
3:30 300003 15:30 10000010
3:45 000000 15:45 9100010
4:00 200002 16:00 800008
4:15 000000 16:15 400004
4:30 100001 16:30 600006
4:45 000000 16:45 200002
5:00 200002 17:00 410005
5:15 100001 17:15 800008
5:30 200002 17:30 900009
5:45 10000010 17:45 600006
6:00 200002 18:00 300003
6:15 700007 18:15 500005
6:30 000000 18:30 400004
6:45 401005 18:45 300003
7:00 300003 19:00 500005
7:15 400004 19:15 410005
7:30 300003 19:30 400004
7:45 800008 19:45 200002
8:00 900009 20:00 500005
8:15 900009 20:15 300003
8:30 300003 20:30 200002
8:45 800008 20:45 200002
9:00 800008 21:00 400004
9:15 400004 21:15 100001
9:30 700007 21:30 500005
9:45 100001 21:45 500005
10:00 400004 22:00 300003
10:15 300003 22:15 100001
10:30 200002 22:30 100001
10:45 200002 22:45 400004
11:00 500005 23:00 000000
11:15 400004 23:15 100001
11:30 300003 23:30 000000
11:45 600006 23:45 200002
TOTAL 1340100135TOTAL 2195100225
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 29 AM PEAK VOLUME 36
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 3535200360
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.1% 1.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 29 0 0 0 0 29
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 27 1 0 0 0 28
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 9 - Summit Ridge Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS93 DWY north of George.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 200002 12:00 12010013
0:15 200002 12:15 10100011
0:30 000000 12:30 900009
0:45 000000 12:45 12000012
1:00 100001 13:00 21000021
1:15 100001 13:15 10100011
1:30 000000 13:30 800008
1:45 000000 13:45 13000013
2:00 300003 14:00 13000013
2:15 110002 14:15 800008
2:30 100001 14:30 18000018
2:45 000000 14:45 900009
3:00 200002 15:00 900009
3:15 100001 15:15 24000024
3:30 000000 15:30 19100020
3:45 000000 15:45 19000019
4:00 100001 16:00 13000013
4:15 000000 16:15 800008
4:30 000000 16:30 22000022
4:45 000000 16:45 13000013
5:00 300003 17:00 15100016
5:15 400004 17:15 12000012
5:30 000000 17:30 15000015
5:45 100001 17:45 18000018
6:00 300003 18:00 23000023
6:15 300003 18:15 12000012
6:30 200002 18:30 10000010
6:45 200002 18:45 12000012
7:00 100001 19:00 16000016
7:15 600006 19:15 13000013
7:30 15000015 19:30 700007
7:45 700007 19:45 700007
8:00 11000011 20:00 14000014
8:15 13000013 20:15 700007
8:30 16000016 20:30 800008
8:45 15000015 20:45 10000010
9:00 10000010 21:00 10000010
9:15 800008 21:15 600006
9:30 12000012 21:30 200002
9:45 500005 21:45 600006
10:00 400004 22:00 700007
10:15 500005 22:15 500005
10:30 200002 22:30 200002
10:45 17000017 22:45 500005
11:00 500005 23:00 900009
11:15 11100012 23:15 100001
11:30 12000012 23:30 100001
11:45 500005 23:45 400004
TOTAL 2132000215TOTAL 5274100532
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 55 AM PEAK VOLUME 76
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 7406100747
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 55 0 0 0 0 55
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 62 1 0 0 0 63
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 9 - Summit Ridge Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS93 DWY north of George.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 100001 12:00 900009
0:15 100001 12:15 12000012
0:30 000000 12:30 12110014
0:45 300003 12:45 20000020
1:00 000000 13:00 16000016
1:15 000000 13:15 14000014
1:30 000000 13:30 17000017
1:45 000000 13:45 9100010
2:00 100001 14:00 18000018
2:15 100001 14:15 11000011
2:30 110002 14:30 10000010
2:45 100001 14:45 14000014
3:00 000000 15:00 19000019
3:15 000000 15:15 15000015
3:30 000000 15:30 11000011
3:45 000000 15:45 900009
4:00 000000 16:00 17000017
4:15 100001 16:15 900009
4:30 300003 16:30 800008
4:45 100001 16:45 13000013
5:00 500005 17:00 500005
5:15 100001 17:15 20000020
5:30 600006 17:30 13000013
5:45 200002 17:45 13000013
6:00 400004 18:00 12000012
6:15 600006 18:15 10000010
6:30 600006 18:30 11000011
6:45 700007 18:45 12000012
7:00 900009 19:00 10000010
7:15 18000018 19:15 500005
7:30 20000020 19:30 800008
7:45 31000031 19:45 11000011
8:00 25000025 20:00 700007
8:15 16000016 20:15 10000010
8:30 15000015 20:30 900009
8:45 14000014 20:45 700007
9:00 10000010 21:00 500005
9:15 15000015 21:15 400004
9:30 11000011 21:30 600006
9:45 900009 21:45 200002
10:00 9100010 22:00 500005
10:15 10000010 22:15 400004
10:30 700007 22:30 400004
10:45 12000012 22:45 300003
11:00 11000011 23:00 600006
11:15 810009 23:15 000000
11:30 900009 23:30 000000
11:45 19100020 23:45 300003
TOTAL 3294000333TOTAL 4682100471
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 12:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 94 AM PEAK VOLUME 67
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 7976100804
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 94 0 0 0 0 94
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 51 0 0 0 0 51
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 9 - Summit Ridge Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS87 Dwy north of Thornton.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 300003
0:15 000000 12:15 210003
0:30 300003 12:30 310004
0:45 200002 12:45 200002
1:00 100001 13:00 300003
1:15 000000 13:15 400004
1:30 000000 13:30 300003
1:45 000000 13:45 300003
2:00 000000 14:00 500005
2:15 000000 14:15 800008
2:30 000000 14:30 600006
2:45 200002 14:45 200002
3:00 100001 15:00 500005
3:15 000000 15:15 500005
3:30 000000 15:30 900009
3:45 000000 15:45 300003
4:00 000000 16:00 900009
4:15 000000 16:15 900009
4:30 000000 16:30 500005
4:45 200002 16:45 700007
5:00 000000 17:00 600006
5:15 000000 17:15 200002
5:30 100001 17:30 900009
5:45 000000 17:45 900009
6:00 000000 18:00 12000012
6:15 000000 18:15 500005
6:30 100001 18:30 900009
6:45 300003 18:45 500005
7:00 100001 19:00 500005
7:15 10000010 19:15 300003
7:30 200002 19:30 800008
7:45 100001 19:45 300003
8:00 300003 20:00 700007
8:15 400004 20:15 500005
8:30 500005 20:30 800008
8:45 210003 20:45 200002
9:00 10000010 21:00 100001
9:15 100001 21:15 300003
9:30 300003 21:30 200002
9:45 700007 21:45 200002
10:00 200002 22:00 700007
10:15 000000 22:15 300003
10:30 100001 22:30 100001
10:45 410005 22:45 300003
11:00 500005 23:00 100001
11:15 300003 23:15 500005
11:30 410005 23:30 100001
11:45 500005 23:45 100001
TOTAL 89300092TOTAL 2242000226
AM PEAK HOUR 8:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 5:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 22 AM PEAK VOLUME 35
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 3135000318
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.4% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 16 0 0 0 0 16
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 30 0 0 0 0 30
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 10 - Riverdale Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS87 Dwy north of Thornton.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 300003
0:15 000000 12:15 600006
0:30 200002 12:30 010001
0:45 100001 12:45 500005
1:00 100001 13:00 300003
1:15 000000 13:15 500005
1:30 100001 13:30 100001
1:45 100001 13:45 500005
2:00 000000 14:00 500005
2:15 000000 14:15 600006
2:30 000000 14:30 700007
2:45 100001 14:45 400004
3:00 000000 15:00 600006
3:15 000000 15:15 200002
3:30 100001 15:30 11000011
3:45 000000 15:45 300003
4:00 100001 16:00 500005
4:15 100001 16:15 12000012
4:30 000000 16:30 500005
4:45 000000 16:45 700007
5:00 100001 17:00 500005
5:15 000000 17:15 600006
5:30 100001 17:30 100001
5:45 100001 17:45 400004
6:00 100001 18:00 700007
6:15 300003 18:15 700007
6:30 600006 18:30 700007
6:45 300003 18:45 400004
7:00 13000013 19:00 500005
7:15 14000014 19:15 200002
7:30 300003 19:30 400004
7:45 700007 19:45 400004
8:00 600006 20:00 500005
8:15 300003 20:15 400004
8:30 11000011 20:30 400004
8:45 510006 20:45 100001
9:00 600006 21:00 200002
9:15 100001 21:15 000000
9:30 400004 21:30 200002
9:45 600006 21:45 000000
10:00 400004 22:00 500005
10:15 000000 22:15 300003
10:30 200002 22:30 100001
10:45 100001 22:45 300003
11:00 300003 23:00 100001
11:15 400004 23:15 500005
11:30 500005 23:30 100001
11:45 410005 23:45 000000
TOTAL 1282000130TOTAL 1941000195
AM PEAK HOUR 7:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 37 AM PEAK VOLUME 31
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 3223000325
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.1% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 37 0 0 0 0 37
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 29 0 0 0 0 29
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 10 - Riverdale Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS88 Southern Dwy east of Cawston.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 100001 12:00 600006
0:15 200002 12:15 12000012
0:30 300003 12:30 900009
0:45 100001 12:45 300003
1:00 100001 13:00 400004
1:15 200002 13:15 13000013
1:30 000000 13:30 11000011
1:45 300003 13:45 300003
2:00 000000 14:00 400004
2:15 100001 14:15 11000011
2:30 000000 14:30 800008
2:45 100001 14:45 11000011
3:00 000000 15:00 14000014
3:15 100001 15:15 600006
3:30 000000 15:30 900009
3:45 000000 15:45 12000012
4:00 000000 16:00 700007
4:15 000000 16:15 13000013
4:30 100001 16:30 600006
4:45 000000 16:45 16000016
5:00 500005 17:00 16000016
5:15 200002 17:15 700007
5:30 300003 17:30 13000013
5:45 200002 17:45 10000010
6:00 100001 18:00 600006
6:15 000000 18:15 10000010
6:30 300003 18:30 10000010
6:45 400004 18:45 10000010
7:00 12000012 19:00 10000010
7:15 11000011 19:15 700007
7:30 10000010 19:30 800008
7:45 500005 19:45 400004
8:00 600006 20:00 400004
8:15 200002 20:15 300003
8:30 900009 20:30 400004
8:45 900009 20:45 200002
9:00 300003 21:00 400004
9:15 300003 21:15 600006
9:30 400004 21:30 600006
9:45 200002 21:45 200002
10:00 300003 22:00 400004
10:15 200002 22:15 500005
10:30 510006 22:30 500005
10:45 400004 22:45 300003
11:00 600006 23:00 000000
11:15 500005 23:15 100001
11:30 600006 23:30 100001
11:45 110002 23:45 100001
TOTAL 1452000147TOTAL 3400000340
AM PEAK HOUR 7:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:45 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 38 AM PEAK VOLUME 52
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 4852000487
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 38 0 0 0 0 38
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 52 0 0 0 0 52
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 10 - Riverdale Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS88 Southern Dwy east of Cawston.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 100001 12:00 400004
0:15 100001 12:15 800008
0:30 200002 12:30 720009
0:45 200002 12:45 700007
1:00 000000 13:00 800008
1:15 100001 13:15 900009
1:30 000000 13:30 13000013
1:45 000000 13:45 700007
2:00 000000 14:00 14000014
2:15 000000 14:15 13000013
2:30 000000 14:30 400004
2:45 000000 14:45 600006
3:00 000000 15:00 600006
3:15 000000 15:15 800008
3:30 000000 15:30 900009
3:45 300003 15:45 11000011
4:00 100001 16:00 800008
4:15 100001 16:15 600006
4:30 000000 16:30 400004
4:45 000000 16:45 700007
5:00 200002 17:00 12000012
5:15 100001 17:15 600006
5:30 200002 17:30 11000011
5:45 100001 17:45 600006
6:00 600006 18:00 300003
6:15 300003 18:15 300003
6:30 300003 18:30 800008
6:45 14000014 18:45 800008
7:00 20000020 19:00 400004
7:15 18000018 19:15 400004
7:30 26000026 19:30 400004
7:45 11000011 19:45 300003
8:00 600006 20:00 500005
8:15 500005 20:15 500005
8:30 800008 20:30 500005
8:45 800008 20:45 300003
9:00 500005 21:00 500005
9:15 200002 21:15 500005
9:30 500005 21:30 400004
9:45 600006 21:45 200002
10:00 500005 22:00 100001
10:15 000000 22:15 200002
10:30 300003 22:30 400004
10:45 710008 22:45 100001
11:00 810009 23:00 000000
11:15 500005 23:15 700007
11:30 400004 23:30 100001
11:45 510006 23:45 100001
TOTAL 2013000204TOTAL 2822000284
AM PEAK HOUR 6:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 1:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 78 AM PEAK VOLUME 47
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 4835000488
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 75 0 0 0 0 75
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 36 0 0 0 0 36
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 10 - Riverdale Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS89 Northern Dwy east of Cawston.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 200002 12:00 400004
0:15 000000 12:15 300003
0:30 000000 12:30 300003
0:45 100001 12:45 100001
1:00 000000 13:00 500005
1:15 000000 13:15 100001
1:30 100001 13:30 400004
1:45 000000 13:45 400004
2:00 100001 14:00 710008
2:15 000000 14:15 500005
2:30 000000 14:30 400004
2:45 000000 14:45 400004
3:00 000000 15:00 400004
3:15 000000 15:15 501006
3:30 000000 15:30 300003
3:45 000000 15:45 200002
4:00 200002 16:00 700007
4:15 500005 16:15 600006
4:30 000000 16:30 800008
4:45 000000 16:45 10000010
5:00 000000 17:00 800008
5:15 000000 17:15 400004
5:30 000000 17:30 300003
5:45 100001 17:45 400004
6:00 100001 18:00 500005
6:15 200002 18:15 600006
6:30 100001 18:30 800008
6:45 000000 18:45 400004
7:00 200002 19:00 500005
7:15 100001 19:15 400004
7:30 500005 19:30 400004
7:45 200002 19:45 500005
8:00 000000 20:00 300003
8:15 100001 20:15 700007
8:30 300003 20:30 400004
8:45 500005 20:45 12000012
9:00 510006 21:00 400004
9:15 300003 21:15 500005
9:30 100001 21:30 400004
9:45 500005 21:45 600006
10:00 300003 22:00 200002
10:15 200002 22:15 400004
10:30 200002 22:30 300003
10:45 400004 22:45 300003
11:00 500005 23:00 600006
11:15 100001 23:15 700007
11:30 300003 23:30 600006
11:45 310004 23:45 500005
TOTAL 73200075TOTAL 2311100233
AM PEAK HOUR 8:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 4:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 17 AM PEAK VOLUME 32
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 3043100308
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.7% 1.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 10 0 0 0 0 10
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 32 0 0 0 0 32
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 10 - Riverdale Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS89 Northern Dwy east of Cawston.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 000000 12:00 600006
0:15 000000 12:15 900009
0:30 300003 12:30 600006
0:45 100001 12:45 400004
1:00 000000 13:00 500005
1:15 000000 13:15 400004
1:30 000000 13:30 500005
1:45 000000 13:45 400004
2:00 000000 14:00 300003
2:15 000000 14:15 800008
2:30 000000 14:30 600006
2:45 200002 14:45 500005
3:00 100001 15:00 600006
3:15 000000 15:15 900009
3:30 300003 15:30 501006
3:45 000000 15:45 700007
4:00 000000 16:00 200002
4:15 400004 16:15 600006
4:30 000000 16:30 600006
4:45 100001 16:45 500005
5:00 000000 17:00 600006
5:15 000000 17:15 300003
5:30 200002 17:30 400004
5:45 200002 17:45 300003
6:00 500005 18:00 600006
6:15 300003 18:15 500005
6:30 200002 18:30 300003
6:45 500005 18:45 300003
7:00 700007 19:00 600006
7:15 700007 19:15 200002
7:30 500005 19:30 200002
7:45 200002 19:45 300003
8:00 400004 20:00 300003
8:15 300003 20:15 100001
8:30 600006 20:30 100001
8:45 400004 20:45 200002
9:00 200002 21:00 100001
9:15 200002 21:15 500005
9:30 300003 21:30 200002
9:45 800008 21:45 200002
10:00 100001 22:00 100001
10:15 300003 22:15 100001
10:30 200002 22:30 300003
10:45 300003 22:45 200002
11:00 200002 23:00 100001
11:15 200002 23:15 000000
11:30 300003 23:30 100001
11:45 110002 23:45 000000
TOTAL 1041000105TOTAL 1830100184
AM PEAK HOUR 6:45 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 24 AM PEAK VOLUME 28
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 2871100289
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 99.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 21 0 0 0 0 21
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 23 0 0 0 0 23
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 10 - Riverdale Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS70 Dwy east of E Parkridge.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 200002 12:00 900009
0:15 200002 12:15 10000010
0:30 800008 12:30 16000016
0:45 200002 12:45 13100014
1:00 200002 13:00 20200022
1:15 200002 13:15 10200012
1:30 100001 13:30 18100019
1:45 100001 13:45 18000018
2:00 100001 14:00 19200021
2:15 100001 14:15 21100022
2:30 100001 14:30 37100038
2:45 100001 14:45 32000032
3:00 400004 15:00 15000015
3:15 500005 15:15 22200024
3:30 100001 15:30 20000020
3:45 400004 15:45 17000017
4:00 700007 16:00 26300029
4:15 000000 16:15 21000021
4:30 200002 16:30 26000026
4:45 400004 16:45 25000025
5:00 300003 17:00 23000023
5:15 500005 17:15 25000025
5:30 100001 17:30 19000019
5:45 500005 17:45 30000030
6:00 400004 18:00 13000013
6:15 600006 18:15 28100029
6:30 320005 18:30 14100015
6:45 810009 18:45 26000026
7:00 620008 19:00 18000018
7:15 7300010 19:15 900009
7:30 20010021 19:30 18000018
7:45 11000011 19:45 20000020
8:00 11010012 20:00 14000014
8:15 15100016 20:15 700007
8:30 11100012 20:30 18000018
8:45 8200010 20:45 14000014
9:00 11000011 21:00 900009
9:15 500005 21:15 15000015
9:30 9200011 21:30 11000011
9:45 800008 21:45 12000012
10:00 13000013 22:00 11000011
10:15 310004 22:15 600006
10:30 9100010 22:30 12000012
10:45 15000015 22:45 500005
11:00 10000010 23:00 700007
11:15 710008 23:15 300003
11:30 11000011 23:30 600006
11:45 800008 23:45 200002
TOTAL 284 17 2 0 0 303 TOTAL 790 17 0 0 0 807
AM PEAK HOUR 7:30 AM AM PEAK HOUR 2:00 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 60 AM PEAK VOLUME 113
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 1,074 34 2 0 0 1,110
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 96.8% 3.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 57 1 2 0 0 60
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 98 3 0 0 0 101
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 11 - Parkridge Meadows Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS70 Dwy east of E Parkridge.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 200002 12:00 800008
0:15 300003 12:15 12100013
0:30 400004 12:30 12000012
0:45 300003 12:45 10000010
1:00 200002 13:00 16200018
1:15 100001 13:15 15200017
1:30 100001 13:30 14000014
1:45 000000 13:45 18000018
2:00 000000 14:00 16300019
2:15 000000 14:15 20200022
2:30 100001 14:30 17000017
2:45 000000 14:45 14000014
3:00 100001 15:00 16100017
3:15 000000 15:15 29200031
3:30 100001 15:30 24000024
3:45 200002 15:45 21000021
4:00 10000010 16:00 15300018
4:15 14000014 16:15 17000017
4:30 16000016 16:30 12000012
4:45 11000011 16:45 900009
5:00 600006 17:00 18000018
5:15 19000019 17:15 15000015
5:30 13000013 17:30 15000015
5:45 16000016 17:45 12000012
6:00 10000010 18:00 11000011
6:15 11000011 18:15 12000012
6:30 18000018 18:30 15300018
6:45 28300031 18:45 12000012
7:00 12100013 19:00 14100015
7:15 35400039 19:15 11000011
7:30 26000026 19:30 13000013
7:45 26010027 19:45 700007
8:00 23000023 20:00 16000016
8:15 10010011 20:15 10000010
8:30 14100015 20:30 19000019
8:45 20300023 20:45 700007
9:00 15000015 21:00 700007
9:15 16000016 21:15 400004
9:30 9100010 21:30 600006
9:45 16100017 21:45 600006
10:00 10000010 22:00 100001
10:15 17000017 22:15 400004
10:30 810009 22:30 700007
10:45 17000017 22:45 300003
11:00 10000010 23:00 800008
11:15 500005 23:15 000000
11:30 12100013 23:30 300003
11:45 17000017 23:45 100001
TOTAL 511 16 2 0 0 529 TOTAL 572 20 0 0 0 592
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 115 AM PEAK VOLUME 94
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 1,083 36 2 0 0 1,121
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 96.6% 3.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 110 4 1 0 0 115
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 60 0 0 0 0 60
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 11 - Parkridge Meadows Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A021323
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS81 Dwy west of Goetz.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 11000011 12:00 29100030
0:15 700007 12:15 34000034
0:30 900009 12:30 28000028
0:45 600006 12:45 32100033
1:00 300003 13:00 20200022
1:15 600006 13:15 40200042
1:30 300003 13:30 37000037
1:45 700007 13:45 29000029
2:00 200002 14:00 28000028
2:15 500005 14:15 48100049
2:30 500005 14:30 45000045
2:45 800008 14:45 33100034
3:00 500005 15:00 33100034
3:15 200002 15:15 51000051
3:30 200002 15:30 48010049
3:45 800008 15:45 62000062
4:00 000000 16:00 56100057
4:15 300003 16:15 42000042
4:30 100001 16:30 49000049
4:45 10000010 16:45 39000039
5:00 500005 17:00 59000059
5:15 800008 17:15 43000043
5:30 600006 17:30 40000040
5:45 500005 17:45 50100051
6:00 600006 18:00 38100039
6:15 300003 18:15 33000033
6:30 800008 18:30 44000044
6:45 900009 18:45 35100036
7:00 900009 19:00 33000033
7:15 14000014 19:15 29000029
7:30 15000015 19:30 27000027
7:45 34000034 19:45 20100021
8:00 44100045 20:00 29000029
8:15 47210050 20:15 25000025
8:30 23000023 20:30 33000033
8:45 37000037 20:45 29000029
9:00 14000014 21:00 29000029
9:15 13000013 21:15 21000021
9:30 16000016 21:30 32000032
9:45 10100011 21:45 10000010
10:00 11100012 22:00 15000015
10:15 16200018 22:15 18000018
10:30 19000019 22:30 21000021
10:45 20000020 22:45 19000019
11:00 14110016 23:00 11000011
11:15 20000020 23:15 21000021
11:30 17000017 23:30 10000010
11:45 19000019 23:45 14000014
TOTAL 5658200575TOTAL 1,571 14 1 0 0 1,586
AM PEAK HOUR 8:00 AM AM PEAK HOUR 3:15 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 155 AM PEAK VOLUME 219
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 2,136 22 3 0 0 2,161
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.8% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 151 3 1 0 0 155
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 192 1 0 0 0 193
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
IN IN
AM PEAK
Study Site 12 - Hunt Club Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
A13123
DATE:CITY:WRCOG
JOB #:SC3826 LOCATION:CLASS81 Dwy west of Goetz.
AM PM
TIME 12345TOTAL Time 12345TOTAL
0:00 500005 12:00 27100028
0:15 400004 12:15 17000017
0:30 600006 12:30 42100043
0:45 100001 12:45 29100030
1:00 200002 13:00 31200033
1:15 500005 13:15 24000024
1:30 400004 13:30 39300042
1:45 100001 13:45 40100041
2:00 200002 14:00 53000053
2:15 400004 14:15 38000038
2:30 200002 14:30 32000032
2:45 400004 14:45 25000025
3:00 400004 15:00 38100039
3:15 800008 15:15 39100040
3:30 12000012 15:30 38010039
3:45 15000015 15:45 39000039
4:00 13000013 16:00 28000028
4:15 11000011 16:15 32100033
4:30 23000023 16:30 33000033
4:45 17000017 16:45 23000023
5:00 10000010 17:00 28000028
5:15 18000018 17:15 39000039
5:30 21000021 17:30 31000031
5:45 28000028 17:45 27000027
6:00 14000014 18:00 17000017
6:15 25100026 18:15 24000024
6:30 37000037 18:30 19000019
6:45 30000030 18:45 24000024
7:00 47100048 19:00 20100021
7:15 65000065 19:15 17000017
7:30 72000072 19:30 13000013
7:45 87000087 19:45 17000017
8:00 53000053 20:00 10000010
8:15 30100031 20:15 18200020
8:30 16210019 20:30 18000018
8:45 17000017 20:45 16000016
9:00 30000030 21:00 900009
9:15 14000014 21:15 800008
9:30 23000023 21:30 16000016
9:45 20000020 21:45 800008
10:00 25100026 22:00 500005
10:15 27000027 22:15 400004
10:30 17100018 22:30 11000011
10:45 31000031 22:45 10000010
11:00 24000024 23:00 700007
11:15 25100026 23:15 600006
11:30 22000022 23:30 200002
11:45 16010017 23:45 100001
TOTAL 9878200997TOTAL 1,092 15 1 0 0 1,108
AM PEAK HOUR 7:15 AM AM PEAK HOUR 1:30 PM
AM PEAK VOLUME 277 AM PEAK VOLUME 174
CLASS 1 CARS TOTAL: AM+PM 2,079 23 3 0 0 2,105
CLASS 2 2-AXLE TRUCKS % OF TOTAL 98.8% 1.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
CLASS 3 3-AXLE TRUCKS 277 0 0 0 0 277
CLASS 4 4-AXLE TRUCKS 125 0 0 0 0 125
CLASS 5 5-AXLE + TRUCKS
PM PEAK
24-HOUR ROADWAY SEGMENT COUNTS (WITH CLASSIFICATION)
Prepared by AimTD LLC tel. 714 253 7888 cs@aimtd.com
THREE DAYS
OUT OUT
AM PEAK
Study Site 12 - Hunt Club Apartments
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 2, 2023
Page 12 of 13
Appendix B: Apartment
Characteristics
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Appendix B: Apartment Characteristics
Studio One
Bedroom
Two
Bedrooms
Three
Bedrooms
Four
Bedrooms
Total # of
DUs
Total # of
Bedrooms
Average #
Bedrooms
per DU
Studio One
Bedroom
Two
Bedrooms
Three
Bedrooms
Four
Bedrooms
Average
Size of
Unit per
Complex
Sum of
Area of All
Dus
Average
Square
Footage
per DU
(Sq. Ft.)
1 Central Zone Oakwood Apartments
15170 Perris Blvd,
Moreno Valley, CA
92551
+1 951-243-0800 N/A - - 80 93 68 241 711 3.0 - - 832 1,042 1,282 1,052 250,642 1040.01
2 Northwest Zone
Springbrook Park
Apartments
1066 Orange St,
Riverside, CA 92501 +1 951-682-9774 N/A - 40 32 40 - 112 224 2.0 - 800 967 1,100 - 956 106,944 954.86
3 Central Zone
Vista Springs
Apartments
21550 Box Springs Rd,
Moreno Valley, CA
92557
+1 951-276-0334 N/A - 108 104 - - 212 316 1.5 - 690 960 - - 825 174,360 822.45
4 Northwest Zone
Vesada Apartment
Homes
3390 Country Village
Road, Riverside, CA
92509
+1 951-462-2198 california.weidner.com 18 72 153 18 - 261 450 1.7 629 782 1,021 1,168 - 900 244,863 938.17
5 Southwest Zone
Morning Ridge
Apartments
30660 Milky Way Dr,
Temecula, CA 92592 +1 951-699-0886 morningridgeapts.com - 74 126 - - 200 326 1.6 680 950 - - 815 170,020 850.10
6 Northwest Zone Stonegate Apartments
6506 Doolittle Ave,
Riverside, CA 92503 (951) 351-9445 stonegateriverside.com 1 79 80 - - 160 240 1.5 300 705 905 - - 637 128,395 802.47
7 Southwest Zone
River's Edge Apartment
Homes
2088 E Lakeshore Dr,
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 +1 951-678-8553 riversedgeapartmentlivi
ng.com - 96 88 - - 184 272 1.5 - 762 1,089 - - 926 168,984 918.39
8 Hemet/San Jacinto
Zone
Mayberry Colony
Apartments
40389 Mayberry Ave #
A1, Hemet, CA 92544 +1 951-929-3380 www.mayberrycolony.co
m - 34 55 - - 89 144 1.6 - 790 962 - - 876 79,770 896.29
9 Pass Zone
Summit Ridge
Apartments
555 N Hathaway St #
1101, Banning, CA
92220
+1 951-849-3001 www.summitridgebanni
ng.com --40 40 - 80 200 2.5 - 850 1,058 - - 954 42,320 529.00
10 Hemet/San Jacinto
Zone Riverdale Apartments 1250 S Cawston Ave,
Hemet, CA 92545 +1 951-766-5672 www.rentriverdaleapts.c
om -- 36 60 - 96 252 2.6 - - 984 1,033 - 1,009 97,404 1014.63
11 Northwest Zone
Parkridge Meadows
Apartments
219 E Parkridge Ave,
Corona, CA 92879 +1 951-736-8681 www.allenproperties.net -- 87 1 - 88 177 2.0 - - 780 - - 780 67,860 771.14
12 Central Zone Hunt Club Apartments
1355 S Perris Blvd,
Perris, CA 92570 +1 951-657-0228 www.huntclubperris.co
m -- 203 -- 203 406 2.0 - - 962 - - 962 195,286 962.00
NameStudy Site
#TUMF Zone Address Phone # Apartment Website
# of Apartment Style Apartment Size (Sq. Ft.)
&----------------
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Christopher Gray and Chris Tzeng, WRCOG
May 2, 2023
Page 13 of 13
Appendix C: Correlation Plots
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
Appendix C: Correlation Plots
Daily Trip Generation by Average Size of Dwelling UnitDaily Trip Generation by # of Dwelling Units in Complex Daily Trip Generation by Average # of Bedrooms Per Dwelling
Unit
AM Peak Trip Generation by # of Dwelling Units in Complex
PM Peak Trip Generation by # of Dwelling Units in Complex
AM Peak Trip Generation by Average # of Bedrooms Per
Dwelling Unit
PM Peak Trip Generation by Average # of Bedrooms Per Dwelling
Unit
AM Peak Trip Generation by Average Size of Dwelling Unit
PM Peak Trip Generation by Average Size of Dwelling Unit
y = 249.92x + 601.26
R² = 0.0813
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5Daily Trips Generated (Veh)Average # of Bedrooms per DU
Average # of Bedrooms per DU
y = 20.854x + 50.612
R² = 0.0758
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5AM Peak Trips Generated (Veh)Average # of Bedrooms per DU
Average # of Bedrooms per DU
y = 19.26x + 50.489
R² = 0.0769
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5PM Peak Trips Generated (Veh)Average # of Bedrooms per DU
Average # of Bedrooms per DU
y = 1.4463x ‐174.18
R² = 0.2107
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200Daily Trips Generated (Veh)Average DU Size (Sq. Ft.)
Average DU Size (Sq. Ft.)
y = 0.1258x ‐18.538
R² = 0.2131
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200AM Peak Trips Generated (Veh)Average DU Size (Sq. Ft.)
Average DU Size (Sq. Ft.)
y = 0.1319x ‐27.14
R² = 0.2789
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200PM Peak Trips Generated (Veh)Average DU Size (Sq. Ft.)
Average DU Size (Sq. Ft.)
y = 5.7897x + 162
R² = 0.7617
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300Daily Trips Generated (Veh)Total # of Dwelling Units
Total # of Dwelling Units
y = 0.4893x + 12.967
R² = 0.7277
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 50 100 150 200 250 300AM Peak Trips Generated (Veh)Total # of Dwelling Units
Total # of Dwelling Units
y = 0.4552x + 15.198
R² = 0.7495
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 50 100 150 200 250 300PM Peak Trips Generated (Veh)Total # of Dwelling Units
Total # of Dwelling Units
•
•
+
,.'v 4-;'~:-';•
+ +
t
+
t
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
• • 1 .. ! ... •·····;·························· +
: .. • + +
•
• . . .............. .
~ ... •·········!··········· . : .. • t
•
•
;..~·········~·············~·········
• • • • • ,-
+
t
t
t
t
t
+
t
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
t
+
t
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
t •
•
t t
•
•
'. ---:·::<:"
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
L-1
Appendix L - Non-Residential Fee Calculation
The non-residential fee was calculated by multiplying the estimated Regional System of
Highways and Arterials improvements cost attributable to new development (Section
4.0) by the proportion of all regional trips that are generated by non-residential land
uses (Section 5.3), and dividing this number by the projected increase in non-residential
land use between 2018 and 2045 (Table 2.3, Section 2.0) and the proportional share of
new employees in each sector.
In preparation for the fee calculation, SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS employment data by sector
was first converted to land use as square feet of gross floor area (SF GFA). Non-
residential employee to gross floor area conversion factors were derived from four
sources. These sources are:
Cordoba Corporation/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. (PBQD),
Land Use Density Conversion Factors For The Long-Range Corridor Study San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20, 1990. Table 8.
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Orange County Subarea
Modeling Guidelines Manual, June 2001. Appendix C.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Employment Density
Study, October 31, 2001, Table IIB
County of Riverside, General Plan, As Amended December 15, 2015, Appendix E:
Socioeconomic Build-Out Projections Assumptions & Methodology, Table E-5
The employment conversion factors developed for use in the calculation of the non-
residential fee are tabulated in Exhibits L-1 through L-4. The relevant sections of these
respective publications are included in this Appendix as Exhibits L-5 through L-8.
To account for the difference in trip generation rates between the various employment
sectors, the non-residential fee value for each sector was normalized by multiplying by
the respective median trip generation rate for the range of associated land use types
as published in the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition,
2021. The respective fee values are presented in Section 6.2. The table detailing the
calculation of the non-residential fee (and residential fee) is included in Appendix K as
Exhibit K-1.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT L-1 Employment Conversion Factors
Employment Sector Employees Gross Floor Area (TSF)
Conversion Rate
(Employees/TSF)
Land Use Category
(2)
Minimum Range
Conversion Rate
(Employees/TSF)
Land Use Category
(3)
SF per Employee
based on Average
Employees per Acre
and Average FAR
(Riverside County)
Employees/TSF Land Use Category (4) SF per Employee Employees/TSF
TUMF Median
Employment
Conversion Factors
(Employees/TSF)
6,379 5,117 1.25 R&D/LI/BP 2.50 R&D/Flex Space 867 Light Industrial 1030
11,603 6,103 1.90 Heavy Industry 2.00 Light Manufacturing 1548 Heavy Industry 1500
8,624 3,962 2.18 Warehouse 1.00 Warehouse 1195
5,559 3,038 1.83
954 411 2.32
6,120 4,140 1.48
119 279 0.43
1,023 917 1.12
1.65 Median 2.00 Median 1195.0 0.84 Median 1265.0 0.79
34,821 20,125 1.73 Regional Retail 268 Commercial Retail 500
3,452 1,590 2.17 Other Retail/Service 629
1,080 453 2.38
12,978 17,023 0.76
1.95 Median 448.5 2.23 Median 500.0 2.00
7,738 1,095 7.07 Office 3.00 Low-Rise Office 481 Commercial Office 300
3,945 548 7.20 Medical/PO/Bank 3.50 Hotel/Motel 3476 Business Park 600
5,470 1,529 3.58 Hospital 2.50
6,680 1,966 3.40 Restaurant 3.00
8,900 3,886 2.29
9,006 3,201 2.81
23,345 4,061 5.75
3.58 Median 3.00 Median 1978.5 0.51 Median 450.0 2.22
Government/Civic 3.00 Government Offices 208
Library 1.50
Median 2.25 Median 208.0 4.81
Notes:
3.53
General Offices
2.61
(3) SCAG, Employment Density Study, October 31, 2001, Table IIB
Service
(2) OCTA, Orange County Subarea Model Guidelines Manual, June 2001. Appendix C.
(1) Cordoba Corporation/PBQD, Land Use Density Conversion Factors For Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20, 1990. Table 8.
- TUMF Median Employment Conversion Factor is the median of (1) through (4) Conversion Rates
- OCTA Typical Employment Conversion Factors for Commercial excluded as it potentially covers uses in both Retail and Service categories; Hotel/Motel, Schools, Golf Course, Developed Park, Park and
Agricultural were excluded as they are calculated from units other than TSF.
Government/Public Sector
Professional Services
Medical Services
Median
(4) County of Riverside, General Plan, As Amended December 15, 2015, Appendix E: Socioeconomic Build-Out Projections Assumptions & Methodology, Table E-5
Retail
1.25
2.00
Equipment Rental
Retail Trade
Median
Personnal, Rental and Repair
General Commercial
Light Manufacturing
Manufacturing, Small Module
Wholesale, Trade Industry
- Business by Land Use Categories Wholesale Trade Commercial and Automotive Repair were excluded as there is inconsistencies between the Land Use Density Conversion Factors For Long Range Corridor
Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties categorization, and the NAICS Major Group categorization.
Business by Land Use Category (1)
Industrial High Tech/Research
Median
Heavy Manufacturing
General Manufacturing
Warehousing
General Industry
Financial/Insurance/Real Estate
Small Office
Restaurant
Business Services
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT L-2 Population and Employment Estimates
Sector 2018 2045 Change Employee Conversion
Factor / TSF Change in SF of GFA
Population 1,905,440 2,533,876 628,436
Households
Single-Family 397,407 564,898 167,491
Multi-Family 157,166 247,501 90,335
Totals 554,573 812,399 257,826
Employees
Industrial 169,334 245,915 76,581 1.25 61,489,565
Retail 73,814 86,929 13,115 2.00 6,557,500
Service 308,703 482,958 174,255 2.61 66,735,957
Government/Public Sector 18,569 30,640 12,071 3.53 3,420,665
Totals 570,420 846,442 276,022 138,203,688
Source: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS; RivCOM
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT L-3 Trip Generation Rate Comparison
Non-Residential
Employee Growth SF Growth
ITE Median PM
Peak Hour Trips
Per Employee
ITE Median PM Peak
Hour Trips per TSF
Trip Growth
(SFGrowth *
ITEMedian)
Calculated PM
Peak Hour Trips per
Employee
Weighted Median
PM Peak Hour Trips
Per Employee
Median Share PM
Peak Period Pass By
Trips (Retail and
Service Uses)
Adjusted PM Peak
Hour Trips Per
Employee
Industrial 76,581 61,489,565 0.7 0.6 36,894 0.5 0.6 0.6
Retail 13,115 6,557,500 3.3 5.0 32,788 2.5 2.9 37%1.8
Service 174,255 66,735,957 2.2 5.7 380,395 2.2 2.2 44%1.2
Government/Public Sector 12,071 3,420,665 3.3 3.2 10,946 0.9 2.1 2.1
276,022 138,203,688 461,022
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
EXHIBIT L-4 Representative ITE Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Rates
RESIDENTIAL
PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Category ITE Reference Trip Ends per DU Trip Ends per Residents
Single Family Residential
Single Family Detached Housing 210 0.99 0.28
Multi Family
Single-Family Attached Housing 215 0.61 0.44
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit 220 0.57 0.27
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit 221 0.39 0.23
Multifamily Housing (High-Rise) Not Close to Rail Transit 222 0.40
Affordable Housing - Income Limits 223 0.50 0.14
Average 0.49 0.27
Median 0.50 0.25
NON-RESIDENTIAL
PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM Peak Period
Land Use Category ITE Reference Trip Ends per TSF*Trip Ends per Employee*Pass by Trips**
Industrial
Intermodal Truck Terminal 30 1.89 0.72
General Light Industry 110 0.80 0.69
Industrial Park 130 0.40 0.42
Manufacturing 140 0.80 0.40
Warehousing 150 0.23 0.68
High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage 154 0.17
High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse - Non-Sort 155 0.27
High-Cube Parcel Hib Warehouse 156 0.71
Average 0.66 0.58
Median 0.56 0.68
Retail
Building Materials and Lumber 812 2.65 3.30
Free-Standing Discount Superstore 813 4.39 1.75 29%
Variety Store 814 7.42 12.65 34%
Free-Standing Discount Store 815 5.42 2.36 20%
Hardware/Paint Store 816 1.10 3.77 26%
Nursery (Garden Center)817 8.37 2.55
Nursery (Wholesale)818 5.01 0.59
Shopping Center 820 4.09 1.91
Shopping Center (150K to 300K)820 29%
Shopping Center (300K to 900 K)820 19%
Shopping Plaza with Supermarket 821 9.72
Shopping Plaza without Supermarket 821 5.40 1.80
Shopping Plaza 821 40%
Strip Retail Plaza 822 13.24 10.15
Factory Outlet Center 823 1.94
Automobile Sales (New)840 2.65 1.10
Automobile Sales (Used)841 4.92 2.27
Automobile Parts Sales 843 5.88 4.27 43%
Tire Store 848 3.72 3.05 25%
Supermarket 850 9.19 3.37 24%
Convenience Store 851 53.51 34.33
Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 853
Discount Supermarket 854
Discount Club 857 4.62 3.49 34%
Sporting Goods Superstore 861 2.58 0.93
Home Improvement Superstore 862 3.21 42%
Electronics Superstore 863 4.48 40%
Pet Supply Superstore 866 2.19
Book Superstore 868 14.00
Department Store 875 2.81
Apparel Store 876 4.20
Pharmacy/Drugstore without Drive Through Window 880 8.62 53%
Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive Through Window 881 11.23 7.79 49%
Marijuana Dispensary 882 24.57
Furniture Store 890 0.70 1.01 53%
Liquor Store 899 17.00 5.98
Gasoline/Service Station 944 28.39 57%
Convenience Store/Gas Station (none)945 21.31
Convenience Store/Gas Station (9 - 15 vehicle fueling positions)945 56.38 75%
Average 9.54 6.87 38%
Median 4.97 3.30 37%
Service
Data Center 160 0.13
Specialty Trade Contractor 180 2.18 0.80
Movie Theatre 445 14.06 9.56
Health/Fitness Club 492 3.92
Day Care Center 565 11.82 4.66 44%
Hospital 610 0.98 0.33
Nursing Home 620 0.82 0.45
Clinic 630 4.22 2.49
Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic 640 3.83 2.26
Free Standing Emergency Room 650 2.24
Small Office Building 712 3.15 1.90
Medical-Dentist Office Building (Stand-Alone)720 4.79 1.26
Medical-Dentist Office Building (Within/Near Hospital Campus)720 3.78 1.03
Walk-in Bank 911 26.40 6.18
Drive-in Bank 912 20.92 4.36 35%
Hair Salon 918 1.94
Copy, Print and Express Ship Store 920 12.30 6.63
Fast Casual Restaurant 930 18.57
Fine Dining Restaurant 931 8.28 1.79 44%
High Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 16.35 3.66 43%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through 934 50.94 5.45 55%
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Through No Seating 935 31%
Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive Through 937 43.65
Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive Through No Seating 938 98%
Quick Lube Vehicle Shop 941 9.42 2.17
Automobile Care Center 942 3.51 1.43
Automobile Parts and Service Center 943 2.61 1.80
Wine Tasting Room 970 6.60
Brewery Tap Room 971 10.93
Drinking Place 975 15.53
Average 10.85 3.06 50%
Median 5.70 2.17 44%
Government/Public Sector
Recreational Community Center 495 2.53 2.71
Elementary School 520 4.60
Middle/Junior High School 522 4.83
High School 525 3.32
School District Office 528 2.37 0.84
Private School (K-8)530 5.72
Private School (K-12)532 2.82
Private High School 534 2.49
Charter Elementary School 536 10.64
Charter School (K-12)538 10.66
Junior/Community College 540 1.63
University/College 550 0.81
Adult Detention Facility 571 0.94 0.51
Library 590 8.53 6.81
Government Office Building 730 3.19 0.91
State Motor Vehicles Department 731 7.68 4.27
Post Office 732 15.11 3.29
Average 5.76 3.93
Median 3.19 3.29
Notes:
* - Average weekday PM peak hour of generator trip end data derived from ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), September 2021
** - Average weekday PM peak pass-by trip rates derived from ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition), September 2021
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
EXHIBIT L-5
Land Use Density Conversion Factors for the Long-Range Corridor Study San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties, Table 8
Cordoba Corporation/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. (PBQD), August 20,
1990.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
EXHIBIT L-6
Orange County Subarea Modeling Guidelines Manual, Appendix C
Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
June 2001
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
EXHIBIT L-7
Employment Density Study, Table IIB
Southern California, October 31, 2001
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC.
Summary Report - Page 4
Employment Density Study
Table II-A
Derivation of Square Feet per Employee Based on:
--MEDIAN EMPLOYEES PER ACRE
--MEDIAN FAR
Land Use Category
Los
Angeles Orange Riverside
San
Bernardino Ventura Imperial Region
Regional Retail -- 2,322 165 1,392 990 -- 1,023
Other Retail/Svc. 730 450 1,148 432 412 796 585
Low-Rise Office 471 352 598 1,014 659 415 466
High-Rise Office 377 235 -- -- -- -- 300
Hotel/Motel 1,179 -- 5,273 1,747 -- 808 1,804
R & D/Flex Space 1,717 511 1,121 1,833 277 -- 527
Light Manufacturing 1,214 786 2,221 1,538 202 2,230 924
Heavy Manufacuring -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Warehouse 1,518 1,350 819 2,111 149 3,257 1,225
Government Offices 2,182 408 1,475 851 120 407 672
Table II-B
Derivation of Square Feet per Employee Based on:
--AVERAGE EMPLOYEES PER ACRE
--AVERAGE FAR
Land Use Category
Los
Angeles Orange Riverside
San
Bernardino Ventura Imperial Region
Regional Retail -- 704 268 1,009 1,165 -- 857
Other Retail/Svc. 424 325 629 124 271 255 344
Low-Rise Office 319 287 481 697 389 632 288
High-Rise Office 440 218 -- -- -- -- 311
Hotel/Motel -- -- 3,476 2,544 -- 311 1,152
R & D/Flex Space 1,796 466 867 834 269 -- 344
Light Manufacturing 829 558 1,548 705 189 994 439
Heavy Manufacuring -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Warehouse 1,518 979 581 1,195 131 450 814
Government Offices 1,442 206 208 188 94 322 261
Notes:
"--" = Data not available.
Square Feet per Employee
Square Feet per Employee
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
WRCOG Adopted by WRCOG Executive Committee
TUMF Nexus Study – 2024 Program Update September 9, 2024
EXHIBIT L-8
General Plan, As Amended December 15, 2015.
Appendix E: Socioeconomic Build-Out Projections Assumptions & Methodology,
Table E-5
County of Riverside, 2015
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80
County of Riverside General Plan
Socioeconomic Build-out Assumptions and Methodology
Appendix E-1 Page 3
December 8, 2015 County of Riverside General Plan
Table E-3: Net Parcel Acre Factors
Land Use Designation Net Parcel Area
Commercial Retail (CR) 0.75
Commercial Tourist (CT) 0.75
Commercial Office (CO) 0.75
Light Industrial (LI) 0.80
Heavy Industrial (HI) 0.75
Business Park (BP) 0.75
Net Parcel Square Feet: To convert net acres to net square feet, net acres are multiplied by 43,560 feet per acre.
For example, 50 net acres of Commercial Office (66.66 gross acres) equals 2,178,000 net square feet.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Floor Area Ratio, or FAR, indicates the ratio of gross building square footage
permitted on a parcel to net square footage of the parcel. FAR's for Commercial, Industrial and Business Park
land uses are identified, in Table E-4, below. See General Plan Glossary for full definition of FAR.
Table E-4: Development FAR Factors
Land Use Designation
FAR
Minimum Probable* Maximum
Commercial Retail (CR) 0.20 0.23 0.35
Commercial Tourist (CT) 0.20 0.25 0.35
Commercial Office (CO) 0.25 0.35 1.00
Light Industrial (LI) 0.25 0.38 0.60
Heavy Industrial (HI) 0.15 0.40 0.50
Business Park (BP) 0.25 0.30 0.60
*Factor used for theoretical planning estimates.
Building Square Footage: Building square footage for the land use designations listed in the table above are
calculated by multiplying the Net Square Feet of each land use designation by the corresponding FAR. For
instance, 20,000 square feet of Commercial Retail with an FAR of 0.23 would yield 4,600 square feet of building
space.
Square Feet (SF)/Employee Factor: This factor indicates the number of employees typically associated with a
given amount of square feet of building space per employee. It is used to estimate the number of jobs resulting
for a given land use designation. These factors for the commercial land use designations are listed in Table E-5
below.
Table E-5: Commercial Employment Factors
Land Use Designation SF/Employee
Commercial Retail (CR)* 500
Commercial Tourist (CT) 500
Commercial Office (CO) 300
Light Industrial (LI) 1,030
Heavy Industrial (HI) 1,500
Business Park (BP) 600
*It is assumed that CR designated lands will build out at 40% CR and 60% MDR.
Employment: Employment for commercial, industrial, and business park land uses is calculated by dividing the
total number of building square feet by the SF/Employee factor. For example, 300,000 square feet of commercial
office building space would yield 1,000 employees.
Docusign Envelope ID: BB95AAA6-51DF-4EB0-8A18-993F1041DE80